Conservatism: what is it?

Austria's Freedom Party gives us an example

Conservatives pose a problem for a political theorist because they don’t like theory. They have no blueprint for a reformed and improved society. As the name implies, conservatives want to conserve traditions and institutions from the past. But they’re not opposed to change as such. Anyone can see that the world has changed a lot since Moses was a baby, but change should be gradual or natural, preserving the bonds between generations. Efforts to shape the future according to revolutionary or utopian ideas are bound to go awry, they’ll warn you.

Conservatives often say that things evolve in accordance with nature, obeying a “plan” that we imperfect humans can only try to understand. We shouldn’t mess with it – but God knows we do! Contemporary conservatives don’t have to believe in a divine plan, however, as they can substitute natural selection, genetics and evolution as an underlying “law of nature”.

Traditionally, conservatives put their faith in inherited monarchy as a political bedrock. Following the demise of so many royal dynasties, however, the family may be cited as the foundation of society. By “family”, conservatives are mostly meaning the “natural” arrangement between a man and a woman who raise their own kids.

Accordingly, conservatives talk about natality, genealogy and the common origins of people who form a “nation”. They uphold a particular cultural heritage, by political means if necessary – which can turn into nationalist or racist ideology. (And, before anyone throws a stone, many socialists have held racist ideas too.)

As a “train-spotter’s guide”, here are some common characteristics of conservatism:

• A strong respect for the past, including religious heritage.

• Society is seen as an organic whole (not a collection of individuals) which has evolved for reasons that may elude our understanding.

• There’s often adherence to a past covenant, charter, treaty, constitution, etc. that laid down basic duties, privileges, rights or liberties.

• Natural inheritance and pedigree matter, so (let’s not kid ourselves, they say) we’re not all born with the same rights or capabilities.

• Social hierarchies serve valid social purposes, whether they’re based on monarchy, nobility, inherited property or personal traits.

As Edmund Burke put it in Reflections on the Revolution in France, there’s an “inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place”. The powerful protect the humble, but the humble can attain moral dignity, happiness and respectability by virtuous conduct and obedience. That may sound off today, but people didn’t try to hide their elitism back in the 1790s.

Conservatism has adapted to the downfall of imperial dynasties, the secularisation of the state and the advances in science and technology. A case in point is Austria, which was formed as a nation-state in the break-up of imperial Austria-Hungary in the aftermath of World War I. The idea of a national community – a people who share a common origin and social bonds, based on their traditional lands, languages and/or religion, and who therefore merit recognition, representation and self-determination – had gained in strength over the course of the nineteenth century. But this idea can go in either a liberal or a conservative direction: it can lead to politics based on free individuals within the nation-state, or on a national community which is to be secured and defended, and into which the individual is incorporated. The latter conservative side is having a resurgence across Europe recently.

Austria's Freedom Party (Freiheitlichen Partei Österreichs, or FPÖ) is an example.

Going by their party programme published in 2011, FPÖ put a big emphasis on freedom, referring back to the civil revolution of 1848, which sounds like bourgeois liberalism at first. But the hallmarks of conservatism are evident. Its “Austria first” principle is about “the people”, not primarily the individual:

“We are committed to Austria's right to self-determination and to preserving and protecting our view of mankind and society that has matured in our traditions and in our history.”

Another sign of conservatism is the value placed on the nuclear family:

“The family, as a partnership between a man and a woman with common children, is the natural nucleus that holds a functioning society together, and which, with the solidarity of the generations, underpins our sustainability.”

They aim to protect “national identity” and “our homeland (Heimat) of Austria”. “The vast majority of Austrians are part of the German peoples’ linguistic and cultural community. The indigenous ethnic groups of the Burgenland Croats, Slovenians, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks and the Roma are historical minorities” and hence integral to the nation.

But “Austria is not a country of immigration. This is why we pursue a family policy centred around births.” This direct connection between natality and belonging is a common feature of post-imperial conservatism. People who have legally immigrated to the country should assimilate into its linguisitic and cultural norms. FPÖ recognises the cultural diversity of Europe, but rejects “forced multiculturalism, globalisation and mass immigration”.

Their programme has a lot to say about a market economy with social responsibility, the separation of church and state, public healthcare, artistic and academic freedom, and more. But the focus in the media is on their immigration policies.

Europe had an influx of migrants and refugees from the Middle East in 2015, boosting nationalist parties such as the FPÖ. These parties also generated political capital out of discontent with restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In September’s election, FPÖ won the largest share of votes (28.8%) and the largest share of seats in the lower house (57 out of 183). That was a big increase from the previous election (up 26 seats), but came well short of a majority.

In descending order of seat numbers, the other main parties are: centre-right People’s Party (51 seats), Social Democratic Party (41), liberal NEOS (18) and Greens (16). None of those parties wants to work with the FPÖ, but they don’t want to be seen sidelining them too quickly, for fear of encouraging further support for them.

By convention, the president invites the party leaders to government-formation discussions, beginning with the leader of the largest party. The current president, Alexander Van der Bellen, is a former leader of the Greens, so he’s not keen on FPÖ either.

A likely outcome is a three-party coalition between the People’s Party, Social Democrats and NEOS.

For New Zealanders, try to imagine NZ First winning the most seats, and then National, Labour and ACT forming a coalition to keep Winston and Shane out of office. On the other hand, National Party supporters could sympathise with the FPÖ if they recall how peeved they were in 2017 when their party won the most seats but got kicked out of the Beehive by a three-party coalition led by Jacinda Ardern and “chosen” by Winston Peters.

People call that “democracy” even though it bears little resemblance to ancient Athens.

Portrait of Edmund Burke by Joshua Reynolds, ca. 1769. Burke is often cited as a father figure by conservatives, which makes sense, given his views about society and religion. But, as an MP, he promoted changes that, in their time, were relatively progressive.