Gregor
Schusterschitz,
Deputy Chief of
Mission
Austrian Embassy
The Hague
gregor.schusterschitz@bmaa.gv.at
Comparing the public debate in Austria with that in the Netherlands on
issues such as the treatment of foreigners, Christianity and Islam and ethnic
self-determination, we can see striking differences. The whole concept of
nation seems to differ, which is not surprising when taking into account the
different historic experiences and
geopolitical circumstances of both countries.
So what are the differences in public perception?
In Austria the integration of immigrants has been a familiar issue for
centuries, whereas it seems to be fairly recent in the Netherlands. In addition to the time aspect, one can see
that the intensity of the public debate is different.
Let me highlight this with a few outstanding examples:
How can these differences be explained? In order to understand them we
have to dig deeply in the historic experiences of both countries. I would
therefore like to briefly introduce you to historical aspects of intercultural
relations in Austria before turning to the question of the role of Islam in
Austria and the Netherlands.
The main reason for the different quality of the public discourse lies
in the past. The history of intercultural relations in Austria differs
substantially from that in the the Netherlands. The Austrian society has
tackled with the issue of migration and having “others” next door for centuries
and is therefore more familiar with the phenomenon of “economic migration” than
the Dutch society.
Today’s Austria lies in the midst of Central Europe with basically no
natural boundaries to its neighbours. Austria is surrounded by different
nations, that settled there in the 9th century at the latest
(Hungarians). To the west are the Swiss and to the northeast the Germans, who
share the language with today’s Austrians. The settlement of German-speaking
people in the area of Austria took place only in the 10th century.
Before that time, east of Kremsmünster (between Salzburg and Linz) and Innichen
(South Tyrol), Slovene was spoken. So the population in Eastern Austria
consists to a large extent of “Germanised Slavs”, something which can also be seen in many geographical names (e.g. Graz, Linz). The
absence of natural boundaries led to shifting borders and close interaction
with the inhabitants of the adjacent regions. Austria remained a “border
region” with Slavic and Hungarian
neighbors in contrast to e.g. Brandenburg or Mecklenburg in Germany, who were
totally incorporated into the German-speaking area and therefore lost - to a
certain extent- their awareness of their Slavic origins.
From the beginning of the 13th century onwards, Austria was
part of political entities, which encompassed people with different languages.
The same can be said for the Netherlands, but in the latter case, this
development ceased with the creation of the Dutch Republic in the 16th
century. In the era of emerging national states, the state concept of Austria
remained unaltered: Austria was the name of various countries, held together by
the supra-national clamp of the ruling imperial Hapsburg family, and – later on
– the bureaucracy and other state institutions. In that Hapsburg Empire,
different nations and languages were brought together. The state of those days
did not pay attention to national differences or to different languages. This
attitude continued to a certain extent until the end of the Hapsburg monarchy.
It is for example impossible to estimate, how many Czechs died in the First
World War. The statistics merely show, how many inhabitants of Bohemia and
Moravia fell, but not if they were German- or Czech-speaking.
The area of today’s Austria has been exposed to a constant flow of
immigration over the centuries. Though that flow of non-German-speaking people
had its peak in the 18th and
19th century and abruptly
ceased in 1918, it can be seen even before that time. For instance the name of
the 4th Viennese district “Wieden” can be derived from the Czech
word for Vienna, “Vídeň“.
Most Czech immigrants
in the late 17th and early 18th century settled in
Wieden.
The dramatically increasing immigration especially to Vienna between
1848 and 1918 made Vienna the largest Czech city in 1900. In the late 19th
century two-thirds of the Viennese population spoke languages other than German
at home. In the last decades before 1914, large quantities of Jews migrated
from the eastern parts of the monarchy and from Russia to Vienna. This flow,
however, was not not only directed towards Vienna and great industrial centres
such as Budapest, Prague, Brno and Ostrava but also to other regions. Even
today, thousands of names can be identified in the various successor states to
the Hapsburg monarchy, which originally came from other parts of the monarchy.
One of the most common names in Hungary is Kovacs, which is originally a Slovak
name. A survey of the phonebook of Ljubjana of 1995 has shown that - among the
most frequent names - names such as Novak (Czech), Hrovath (Hungarian, meaning
“Croat”) and Veber (German) can be found.
The immigration to Austria came to a halt in 1918 and was replaced by a
vast emigration to the newly founded successor states of the Hapsburg monarchy.
After 1945 immigration to Austria resumed, in the first years after the war by
German-speaking persons from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia etc. and
afterwards by political refugees: since 1945, 2 million refugees came to
Austria, of which approximately 700.000 stayed in Austria. In 1956 200.000
Hungarians came to Austria, of which almost 50.000 stayed permanently, in 1968
162.000 Czechoslovaks and in 1980 150.000 Poles sought refuge in Austria.
Over 12.000 Czechoslovaks and 30.000
Poles chose thereafter to settle down in Austria. In the 90ies the wars in
Former Yugoslavia meant new waves of refugees. Over 100.000 came to Austria,
where more than 60.000 found their new home.
During the long period of migration to and from Austria the Austrian
approach remained similar: the groups were mostly assimilated. There was no
pressure to assimilate, yet it was also almost impossible to create parallel
societies. Since the 18th century the school system is run by the
state, rendering religious schools a rare exception. All immigrants having to
enroll their children at public
schools, good German language skills
were adopted in the second generation at the latest. The command of the
language predominantly spoken in the area of settlement was necessary for
economic success. That was not only true for German-speaking areas but also for
other regions (e.g. in Trento the command of Italian was a non-negotiable
requirement). Also the formation of priests or other religious leaders was
provided by the state. As Austria took over today’s Western Ukraine in 1772,
one of the first measures was the establishment of a greek-catholic seminary
for priests with public funding. Thereby the creation of parallel structures in
the society was avoided. This tradition was also kept by Austria after 1918,
immigrant children having to go to Austrian public schools and religious
leaders being educated in public institutions (e.g. imams are trained in a
public Austrian institution).
Thus, immigrant groups were soon integrated in the Austrian society. Whereas hundreds of thousands Czechs
came to Vienna after 1860, today only several thousand persons in Austria say
that their mother tongue is Czech.
Most immigrants that came to Austria in the last centuries were from
regions with a similar cultural background, such as Czechs, Hungarians, Southern
Slavs etc. The cultural proximity rendered their integration and assimilation
easier. Only in 1972 the first immigrants from regions other than Europe
arrived in Austria. They, however, were confronted with the traditional model
of assimilation and so sent their children to Austrian schools.
Since Austria was no colonial power, the people migrating were normal
citizens auf the Hapsburg Empire. Thus the feeling of being absolutely
“superior” was rather restricted in comparison to migrant groups that came to
their colonial mother countries.
Furthermore the groups that migrated to Austria came for economic
reasons, as do most of today’s migrants.
So there is – in that regard – no big difference between the Czechs of
the early 20th century and the Turks of the late 20th
century.
The above-mentioned reasons explain, why the public discourse in Austria
differs substantially from that in the Netherlands. The Austrian nation is
itself to a large extent the offspring of former immigrants who were
assimilated decades if not centuries ago. Thus the very concept of immigration,
of living together with people from different backgrounds, of listening to
foreign languages in the daily life (even of having to communicate in different
languages) is quite familiar to Austrian society. The Austrians perceive
themselves as lying at the crossroads of different cultures, the role of
Austria as bridge between the West and the East in the Cold War and now as a
gateway to Central and South-eastern Europe but also the Austrian intention to
host international conferences and organizations illustrates this
self-perception. Another result of that unclear and fragile national
composition of the Austrian population is the fact that for a long time the
inhabitants were not sure, where they belonged. Before 1918, their identity was
moulded by the ruling Hapsburgs and after 1918, that identity posed a big
problem. Austrians regarded themselves mostly as Germans (because of their
mother tongue), e.g. Chancellor Schuschnigg called Austria in 1937 the “better
Germany”. Only after the 2nd World War a “real” Austrian identity
emerged. That uncertainty is often felt, when historic figures have to be
attributed to a specific country (e.g. Mozart, Liszt, Kafka).
The feeling of lying at a crossroads and of being object and subject to
migration led to two contradictory developments. On the one hand, Austrians are
familiar with the problems this entails, on the other, the sense of being the
boundary of “Germanity” which has to defend the German culture (“Grenzlandtum”)
has led to a strong emphasis on the German character of Austria predominantly
until 1945 but, in a small minority, even till today. Interesting enough, a lot
of germanised Slavs can be found among that group (a German-nationalistic
politician in the monarchy had the typical Czech name “Bělohlavek“and one of the worst Nazi murderers was named
Odilo Globocnig, hence combining a very Germanic first name with a truly
Slovenian second name).
The “Austrian” perception of Islam differs substantially from the Dutch,
historic experiences having given Islam a different role in society. Whereas in
many European countries the appearance of Islam is quite a recent phenomenon,
Austria has had relations with Islam for centuries. In the beginning, it posed
- as it is still felt sometimes today - a threat to Christianity, as the Turks
marched through the Balkans and Hungary towards Vienna and besieged it twice in
1529 and 1683. That perception changed, however, after large parts of Hungary
and Croatia were occupied and a military borderline was erected vis-à-vis the
Ottoman Empire. Turkish citizens had the right to trade freely in Austria. The
first large group of Muslims (around 600.000) became subjects of the Hapsburg
Empire, when - in 1878 - Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina. After
first regulations were enacted shortly thereafter (ruling on the usage of the
Fez in the army and the celebration of the Ramadan in the armed forces), a
full-fledged law on Islam was enacted in 1912, granting the Islam all rights of
other religions in the empire. The emperor granted a large sum to build a
mosque in Vienna, which could then – due to the break-out of the 1st
World war – not be realised. In 1979 all sections of Islam were officially
recognized in Austria (before the 70ies most Muslims were from
Bosnia-Herzegovina).
Furthermore, the Muslims Austria dealt with, where on an equal footing:
They were feared opponents (Ottoman empire) or citizens as all others
(Bosnians). Therefore no sense of superiority characterized the Austrian behaviour.
Muslims in Austria do also encounter resistance or scepticism, but the
general thrust is that Muslims are feeling well-received. Currently around
450.000 Muslims live in Austria (total population 8 million), of which 80.000
are Austrian citizens (mostly Bosnians and Turks). The reason for this positive
relationship, characterized by manyexperts (including the Director of the
European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia) as a case model lies predominantly in the long period of
familiarity with Islam.
From the creation of the Dutch republic onwards, the Netherlands were
also the target of various groups, be it the Hugenottes, Jews from Portugal or
others. These groups were politically persecuted and sought refuge in the
liberal Netherlands. Thus, the very reason why these groups came to the
Netherlands, was the possibility to live in a way, it was not possible in the
respective countries of origin. Therefore the treatment of those groups
differed fundamentally from the treatment of migrant groups in Austria, where
the reasons for migration predominantly lay in the economic realm. Migrant
groups, who were also smaller than the groups in Austria, were allowed to
create their own sub-societies. This creation of sub-societies corresponds to
the traditional Dutch column model.
The new migrant groups - coming in the last decades to the Netherlands
-, came mostly for economic reasons and not to seek refuge from political
persecution, hence a fundamental change in the motive of immigrants. They were
not interested in the religious and political liberal conditions but to improve
their standard of living. Since the column model favoured the creation of
separate social institutions, the migrant groups abided by that model and built
up their own schools and social life. This development hindered to a certain
extent their integration into the Dutch society.
Thus the Dutch society, when being faced with tensions among national
and religious groups today, seems unsure of how to react. It lacks the
familiarity with the phenomenon of large-scale immigration and, through the
tradition of the column model, the creation of sub-societies which are only
loosely connected to the Dutch society, was encouraged.