Fischer on SPÖ course:

“We don’t need a shift to the left or the right”

Former Federal President Heinz Fischer spoke to the "Krone".

(Bild: APA/Helmut Fohringer)

The SPÖ politician in the "Krone" podcast on the super election year, criticism of Austria's Israel policy, his party and the KPÖ.

Former Federal President Heinz Fischer talks to Ida Metzger and Rainer Nowak. Excerpts from the conversation about coalitions, the role of the president, the SPÖ and communism. You can listen to the whole podcast here. 

"Krone": For many in the country, you are a great authority in this country. Your time in office was admittedly less turbulent than that of your successor Alexander van der Bellen. Would you have liked to have had more action?
Heinz Fischer: You can't choose. I would accept both periods. You have to fulfill your role, regardless of the phase.

Former Federal President Heinz Fischer spoke to the "Krone" newspaper.

(Bild: APA/Helmut Fohringer)

Things are likely to continue to be turbulent. If Herbert Kickl's FPÖ ends up in first place after the elections. Should he be given the government mandate?
The constitution must be adhered to, but it is also about political decisions. There will certainly be several options. The president will choose the best option. This also includes the degree of stability that is necessary to avoid a vote of no confidence after a short time. The government must have a majority behind it for the foreseeable future. I must prefer a stable government to an unstable one. And of course the quality of the personnel will also have to be taken into account.

(Bild: Krone KREATIV)

If Kickl becomes first and fails to put together a government, then there will be a government with the others?
We already had this in 1999. If a promising candidate fails to put together a majority, then the Federal President will probably say that another candidate for chancellor must be considered.

Can a party that has a majority be rejected?
Legally yes, but in practice there will be no alternative to someone who has a parliamentary majority behind them. Other options are then unrealistic.

Ibiza and the expert government afterwards were also unrealistic ...
 That's true, but that was also negotiated by a majority. Experts could also play a role again in the future.

Current phenomena also include parties that suddenly appear. Like the KPÖ ... 
 I wouldn't have expected that. I saw how the communists melted away after the war. They promised the Soviets in 1945 that they would achieve 25 percent. But the Soviets were very disappointed that they only got 4 or 5 percent. After the Hungarian revolution, the communists were voted out of parliament. That lasted until now. Now the KPÖ has done well in Graz and Salzburg. But that will not mean a renaissance of communism. But it does show that much has been forgotten about what communism was responsible for in Europe. And it shows that personality and a plausible program are very important. The communists focus on a painful point in society and have a certain degree of credibility. But I don't think that will be enough for the KPÖ candidate in Salzburg to come first.

The government must have a majority behind it for the foreseeable future.

Ex-Bundespräsident Heinz Fischer im „Krone“-Podcast „Superwahljahr“

There are important decisions to be made right after the elections. If it doesn't look like agreements will be reached, wouldn't a government of experts be the best temporary solution again?
There will be a certain amount of time pressure. A draft budget will have to be presented in October and the decision on the EU Commissioner is also pending. Time is pressing. We could also think about involving experts. I value the 1920 constitution for its elegance, and it has been revised dozens of times. The constitution is a mixture of firmness and elasticity.

You were also accused of being close to communism, what is your relationship like today?
In 1961, I wrote an article in an SPÖ magazine entitled "Stalin's Crimes". That caused quite a stir. I never personally took offense at communism. Diplomatic relations were established with China and North Korea in 1970. I thought that was sensible. I visited North Korea once as a young member of parliament, I wasn't the first. Then friendship societies were founded - I was a member, as were ÖVP politicians, by the way. This was dredged up during the presidential election campaign and I was said to be close to them. 

There is very little debate about foreign policy in Austria. What is striking is Austria's clear pro-Israel stance. Clearer than governments before. How do you see that?
I think Kreisky's policy here is right. You have to be an absolutely fierce opponent of all anti-Semitism. I am absolutely in favor of protecting and defending Israel's right to exist. However, this should not prevent us from taking the fate of the Palestinians seriously. I think it makes sense to find a solution here, as Kreisky tried to do. I have noticed the clear stance since Kurz and Strache formed the coalition. They have been pro-Israel. It is the same today. Hamas' crime is condemnable and terrible, but the fact that millions of Palestinians are now affected and tens of thousands have died means that we have to take a stand here too. More and more Western states are doing this. If I bring together a resolution that includes a ceasefire and the release of hostages and then say that the resolution did not include condemnation of terrorism and do not vote, then that is an excuse. I can't vote against the release of the hostages because of that one point. That was wrong, in my opinion.

Let's move on to your party, the SPÖ. There is still internal wrangling over the course to take. Where do you see the right course?
I see it in the middle of social democracy. The SPÖ is pluralistic and wants to help the socially disadvantaged. We don't need a shift to the left. Of course we don't need a shift to the right either. But we must have a clear line and the majority of social democrats stand by it.

Doyou regret the departure of Pamela Rendi-Wagner?
I regret the way some people have treated Pamela Rendi-Wagner. My wife and I really appreciated her as a person. She had many qualifications for party chairwoman. But I also fully understood when she said, 'I hoped that reason would prevail, but it didn't, so I'm not running again'. From her point of view, that was the right decision. It was an honorable withdrawal.

Is Andreas Babler too far to the left for you? He was initially seen as the messiah of the SPÖ. It doesn't look like that in the polls ...
 I don't know how the elections will turn out. Andi Babler is in good spirits and people will be surprised how successful he is, he has a chance in a difficult time against other candidates who also have their weaknesses and problems.

But there are public disputes and you don't get the feeling that everyone in the party is behind Babler ...
 Parts of public opinion tend to make mosquitoes out of elephants. If some people today hope that there is a deep division in the SPÖ, then they are mistaken. But there are definitely different points of view. Just as the SPÖ used to be accused of being a cadre party, people are now focusing on the individual reactions of the functionaries.

They talk a lot to decision-makers. You circle the SPÖ herd. What are you now? Mediator or father?
Neither. I joined the party on February 12, 1956. I became deputy party chairman in 1978. I took part in all the executive committee meetings from 1963 until I became Federal President. I know the Social Democrats very well. But I retired in 86.

So you are a veteran? Or a wailing wall?
I'm certainly not a wailing wall. Everyone has their convictions, you can stand up for them. I believe that pluralism, the rule of law and the market economy, with all their weaknesses, are the building blocks of my thinking. It pays to stand up for them and to stick your neck out a little.

The podcast "Superwahljahr" is published weekly on krone.at and can also be subscribed to on all podcast platforms.