Fischer and Babler: – “Save the country from black and blue for the third time”

“Kron”: Mr. Babler, the welfare state is one of the greatest achievements of social democracy. In Denmark, the Social Democrats are currently making fine adjustments. For example, a public holiday was abolished and the retirement age was raised to maintain the welfare state. They want expansion without compromise. Is that still contemporary? Andreas Babler: I have a differentiated view of social policy in other countries, such as Denmark. Social democracy has always had the ability to combine the welfare state with modern economic and location policies. Under the Social Democratic governments there were strong economic developments, strong GDP, and the only government even managed to reduce normal working hours with full employment. For Austrian social democracy there was never a question of either/or, but our claim is characterized by respect and justice towards people. We also see it this way when it comes to questions about pension increases. If you look at how life expectancy has increased over the last twenty years, the retirement age has actually increased more than life expectancy. The starting age of 65 is high enough; many people cannot retire in good health. There will be no increase in the retirement age at the SPÖ, nor will there be a reduction in pensions.

Mr Fischer, the Scandinavian path has always been more reform-friendly. Is this the right path for the future?
Heinz Fischer: When it comes to the welfare state, my principle is: don’t talk about an issue until you know the figures. And the numbers tell us that the concentration of wealth at the top of society is increasing rapidly. That’s why I believe that if you want a fair society, you have to start there, and not with low incomes or pensions.

In Germany, SPÖ Chancellor Gerhard Schröder introduced harsh reforms in the 1990s from which Angela Merkel subsequently benefited. Don’t either of you like this pragmatism?
Fisherman: Pragmatics is also part of social democracy, but a view of humanity and the principle of justice are also part of social democracy. Gerhard Schröder was a valuable discussion partner in personal conversations. But his policies were quite controversial for the social democrats.
Babler: I see this third way of Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder, as it was called at the time, as a failure. Liberalization in healthcare is the best-known example and probably the lowest point of this wrong path of social democracy. We can see the state of the healthcare system in Britain.

How do you define pragmatism then?
Babler: The pragmatism of social democracy stems from the idea of ​​wanting to guarantee people a good and safe life, while at the same time supporting economic growth and making investments in times of crisis. When we now call for investments, for example in the transformation fund, we do so because social democracy has always been able to bring about change. Whether it was the transition from the monarchy, whether it was the transformation from the disappearance of the coal industry to the metalworking industry, or whether it was the necessary switch to green technology: you need pragmatism to have a perspective on creating jobs . to have the future and not miss this process. We can reconcile transformation, the great prerogative of social democracy, with the conviction that we humans have rights and that these must also be organized by the state.

Have you noticed that we haven’t even talked about SPÖ icon Bruno Kreisky yet? Today he is still often cited as a model for SPÖ politicians. Mr. Fischer, you knew Kreisky well. Would he have the same impact as chancellor today as he did in the 1970s?
Fisherman: Someone with the skills, talents and commitment of Bruno Kreisky, who was born not in 1911 but in 1951 or 1961, would still be an incredibly attractive politician today because Kreisky truly loved people. He had an incredible ability to explain his politics, while also being sensitive to people who were far removed from politics. Besides politics, he was also interested in art, science, literature, etc. So a Kreisky born in 1961 would still be an excellent government leader and statesman. That’s how I see it.
Babler: Kreisky’s ability, as Heinz Fischer did incredibly well, to like people connects me to him. I am a man who really loves people and can also have a good effect on people who are not particularly interested in politics. As mayor, I know the people and their fate personally and I derive the political tasks from this. Kreisky has made incredible reforms. For example, if we consider that women were given equal rights in family law for the first time. I would like to take the next step and make women equal in the labor market – namely to achieve equal pay for equal work… Under difficult conditions – almost full employment – ​​Kreisky managed to get the Austrians to reduce working hours from 45 to 45 years. 40 hours. In this way, 50 years later, we will give it to 4.2 million people one by one.

Mr Babler, which moments in social democratic history have influenced you?
Babler: The historical role of social democracy is inevitably linked to the defense of our democracy – as was the case during the February battle of 1934, when the social democrats risked their lives to defend it. My feeling that social democracy is always on the right side of history has been confirmed, especially when attacks on our democracy have taken place. The rise of Jörg Haider in 1986 was one such moment that showed how important social democracy is for our country. The Social Democrats twice took the lead in the reconstruction of this republic. That is why social democracy has a strong sense of knowing when democracy is in danger. For this reason, the upcoming decision on the price is also very historic. It is important to me to protect this democracy, this republic as we know and love it. This goal is embedded in the danger of orbanization, the danger of this prison, as outlined by the FPÖ. There are also attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent media landscape.

Let’s get to current politics. Are we on the eve of a new SPÖ/ÖVP government?
Fisherman: You must approach this question with a certain humility. The time when our parliament consisted of three parties is over. The time is certainly over when the two strongest parties had 85, 90, 95 percent of the vote. Today we do not know how many parties there will be in the next parliament. I think what we can do now is not to destroy any China, to keep the channels of communication open, to prepare for a substantial government program, so that we can then have really concrete negotiations. I also share the view that the Liberal Party is behaving in such a way that the Social Democrats are forced to distance themselves from a politician like Kickl. Of course a government between SPÖ and ÖVP is possible. If you rule that out, there is little viable left. You also see that the SPÖ and ÖVP have tried not to break too much porcelain lately.
Babler: I am confident that as Chancellor I can take on the responsibility. I’m all for stable variants, no matter what they look like. We have a common history with the ÖVP in the major coalitions of that time. The ÖVP canceled this and decided to move to the right. And of course I will talk to everyone, including sensible people in the ÖVP. It is clear to us that we want to spare the country the black-blue coalition for the third time, but that will only work if they do not have a majority.

Mr Fischer, does it not irritate you as a former Federal President that a beer party that has not done any democratic work so far is on par with NEOS or the Greens in the polls?
Fisherman: This has nothing to do with my previous role. The eight percent are not yet in the ballot box. But one thing that is actually a European phenomenon is that the political glue of different groups in society is becoming more fragile and loose, leading to fragmentation. In Denmark and some other countries there are considerably more parties than in Austria. The social structures of society have changed significantly. The large working class, a broad layer of peasants and the old bourgeoisie no longer exist in this form. The major parties have an even greater obligation to find a common denominator. With good will it must and will be possible to form a stable government with a foundation of values ​​after the elections. It is our duty as Democrats to contribute to this and not sabotage or block it.

The reason for the interview is 150 years of social democracy. You have lived through many decades of the republic. Who were the most influential chancellors of the 2nd Republic?
Fisherman: For me, there are four historically strong chancellors in the Second Republic: these are Leopold Figl, Julius Raab, Kreisky and Franz Vranitzky. I do not deny the other full efforts and successes, but I consider these four to be the most important in our recent history.