Austria's Socialists in the Trend Toward a Two-Party System: an Interpretation of Postwar Elections
| Published date | 01 September 1958 |
| Author | Charles A. Gulick |
| Date | 01 September 1958 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591295801100307 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
539
AUSTRIA’S
SOCIALISTS
IN
THE
TREND
TOWARD
A
TWO-PARTY
SYSTEM:
AN
INTERPRETATION
OF
POSTWAR
ELECTIONS
CHARLES
A.
GULICK*
University
of
California,
Berkeley
*
The
author
wishes
to
express
his
heartiest
thanks
to
the
Director
and
Staff
of
the
Insti-
tute
of
Industrial
Relations,
University
of
California,
Berkeley,
for
help
of
various
kinds
-
especially
to
Manfred
Wolfson
for
assistance
in
the
collection
of
data
and
the
development
of
interpretations
-
and
to
Gabriel
A.
Almond,
Reinhard
Bendix,
Van
D.
Kennedy,
Leslie
M.
Lipson,
and
M.
E.
Knight
for
comments
and
criticisms
on an
earlier
draft.
He
is
also
grateful
to
Kurt
L.
Shell
for
the
opportunity
to
examine
the
manuscript
of
his
doctoral
dissertation
on
the
Austrian
Socialist
party.
I
N
I~TAY
22,
1957,
when
Adolf
Schaerf,
the
newly
elected
Fed-
0
eral
President,
took
over
the
executive
offices
in
the
Ho f burg
of
Vienna,
he
was
succeeding
his
friends
and
mentors
Karl
Renner
and
Theodor
Koerner.
Thus
the
Socialist
party
of
Austria
(SPOe)
has
retained
the
Presidency
since
the
first
elections,
November,
1945,
in
the
Second
Republic.
In
one
of
the
four
parliamentary
elections
it
secured
the
largest
number
of
popular
votes,
but
failed
by
one
seat
to
gain
the
greatest
bloc
in
the
Nationalrat
(lower
house
of
parliament).
Its
chief
opponent,
the
Austrian
People’s
party
(OeVP),
has
thrice
attained
the
most
popular
votes
in
a
Nationalrat
election,
has
consistently
held
the
largest
number
of
seats,
once
had
an
absolute
majority
of
them,
and
currently
lacks
only
one
of
that
majority.
An
over-all
view
of
the
six
appeals
to
the
electorate
-
four
general
and
two~
(Koerner
and
Schaerf )
presidential
elections
- supports
the
proposi-
tion
that
Austria
is
moving,
slowly
and
hesitantly,
toward
a
two-partly
SySteM.2
To
prevent
misunderstanding,
I
emphasize
that
I
see
the
develop-
ment
as
only
a
trend
or
long-term
drift.
As
will
be
shown,
there
have
been
countercurrents
that
for
a
time
appeared
to
presage
a
three-
or
multi-party
system.
The
election
of
1951,
when
Koerner
became
the
first
popularly
selected
President,
foreshadowed
the
re-emergence
of
forces
favorable
to
a
two-party
pattern.
They
came
into
sharper
focus
in
the
Nationalrat
election
of
1956
and
the
presidential
contest
of
1957.
From
the
beginning
of
the
1 Renner
was
elected
President
in
1945
by
the
joint
vote
of
the
two
houses
of
parliament.
Although
the
reinstated
constitution
of
1929
stipulated
a
popular
vote,
special legisla-
tion
provided
for
the
parliamentary
method
in
1931
and
1945.
2 Like
my
colleague,
Leslie
M.
Lipson,
I
wish
to
avoid
a
&dquo;semantic
bog&dquo;;
consequently,
I
accept
his
statement
that
&dquo;a
state
has
a
two-party
system
if
it
satisfies
the
following
conditions:
(1)
Not
more
than
two
parties
at
any
given
time
have
a
genuine
chance
to
gain
power.
(2)
One
of
these
is
able
to
win
the
requisite
majority
and
stay
in
office
without
help
from
a
third
party.
(3)
Over
a
number
of
decades
two
parties
alternate
in
power.&dquo;
See
Lipson’s
&dquo;The
Two-Party
System
in
British
Politics,&dquo;
Ameri-
can
Political
Science
Review,
XLVII
(June,
1953),
338.
540
Second
Republic,
however,
it
has
been
clear
enough
that
only
the
OeVP
and
the
SPOe
have
a
&dquo;genuine
chance
to
gain
power&dquo;;
that
is,
Austria
satisfies
Lipson’s
first
condition.
She
cannot
satisfy
the
third
-
alternation
in
power
of
major
parties
over
a
&dquo;number
of
decades&dquo;
-
because
the
present
state
has
not
existed
that
long.
And,
for
a
complex
of
reasons
that
will
appear,
neither
the
SPOe
nor
the
OeVP
has
been
in
a
position
to
satisfy
the
second
condition.
Suffice
it
here
to
say
that
the
dominant
fact
in
the
political
configuration
of
the
Second
Republic,
a
fact
relevant
to
con-
ditions
two
and
three,
is
the
maintenance
of
a
cabinet
of
&dquo;concentration&dquo;
or
&dquo;coalition&dquo;
from
the
days
of
&dquo;liberation&dquo;
to
the
present.
Among
the
forces
favorable
to
the
emergence
of
a
two-party
system,
one
of
the
most
important
is
the
success
of
both
SPOe
and
OeVP
in
broadening
their
bases;
each
now
attracts
substantial
blocs
of
voters
from
geographic
areas
and
from
occupational
and
social
groups
in
which
their
predecessors3
enjoyed
a
quasi-monopoly.
Second,
the
smaller
parties
and
splinter
groups,
after
a
spurt
by
the
most
important
of
them
in
1949,
have
lost
substantially
(or
catastrophically)
in
votes
and
significance.
Third,
the
rigid
party
ties
of
the
First
Republic
have
been
materially
relaxed.
As
a
consequence,
there
are
more
voters
who
respond
to
an
appeal
on
specific
issues
-
or
to
a
per-
sonality
in
the
presidential
campaigns.
Withdrawal
of
the
occupation
forces,
chiefly
the
Russian,
removed
real
or
fancied
pressures
from
many
thousands
of
citizens.
Finally,
the
increase
in
the
number
of
floating
voters
and
the
multidirectional
character
of
the
shifts
they
have
been
making
in
recent
elections
point
toward
the
ultimate
acquisition
by
one
of
the
major
parties
of
the
&dquo;requisite
majority&dquo;
to
govern
without
aid
from
a
third
party
and
toward
improved
chances
for
the
other
to
alternate
with
it
in
office.4
4
II
For
easier
comprehension
of
the
developments
and
the
role
of
the
SPOe
in
them
a
few
reminders
are
in
order.
Throughout
the
First
Republic,
1918-
34,
Austria
had
basically
a
two-party
system
-
what
her
leading
political
3
The
Social
Democratic
and
Christian
Social
(Roman
Catholic)
parties
of
the
First
Republic.
4
At
first
glance
these
evaluations
may
appear
to
run
completely
counter
to
those
of
Otto
Kirchheimer
in
his
stimulating
discussion
of
"The
Waning
of
Opposition
in
Parlia-
mentary
Regimes"
Social
Research,
XXIV
(Summer,
1957),
127-56.
There
he
uses
"contemporary
Austria"
as
a
prime
example
of
"the
elimination
of
major
political
opposition
through
government
by
party
cartel,"
and
writes
of
her
"more
than
temporary
abandonment
of
the
government-opposition
relation"
(p.
136).
Closer
examination
of
the
evidence
will
show,
I
believe,
that
what
Kirchheimer
elsewhere
(p.
156)
calls
the
Austrian
"revival
of
the
opposition
concept"
is
likely
to
carry
fur-
ther
than
he
appears
to
expect.
He
grants
(p.
140)
that
"Austria
has
come
close
to
being
a
two-party
state."
Moreover,
he
points
out
(p.
139)
that
"the
restricted
exercise
of
parliamentary
opposition
has
not
dried
up
the
competition
between
the
two
major
parties
for
the
votes
of
the
new
voters,
of
potential
switchers
from
each,
and
of
the
declining
reservoir
of
third-party
voters."
Perhaps
the
chief
difference
between
us
is
in
the
evaluation
of
the
long-run
results
of
the
"competition"
he
emphasizes.
To continue reading
Request your trial