"Democratic interference", with regard to the Haider case

Abstract

This article comments at length about the legal implications of the reaction of the member states of the European Union to the formation of a government in Austria which included Haider's party; a party which is politically unpopular with the major European parties. The E.U. governments claimed that the purpose of their interference in Austrian political life was to guarantee respect for democratic values and principles and respect for human rights. However, the author is of the opinion that such interference is based on legal principles which are unclear if not completely unfounded. The action of the E.U. governments. is unprecedented in that in practice it prohibited the forrnation of a government which included. a party which is unpopular with the major European parties. It is now generally recognized that certain state prerogatives which until the. Second World War were considered as non-derogable rights emanating f ram state sovereignty lose their validity if they lead to violations of fundamental human rights. However it is hardly fair to claim that the formation of a government which includes Raider's party is in itself a violation of human rights. Moreover, Austria has one of the most real and effective legislative frameworks found in the member States of the E.U. to prohibit any government or any political majority from committing any acts which would undermine fundamental rights. The interference of the E.U. governments has laid down a dangerous precedent, for there have never been dissenting opinions on the European level with regard to the party's participation in elections. It follows from the reasoning of the fourteen E.U. governments that for participation in government, more requisites have to be fulfilled than those required to hold a seat in Parliament. The 'democratic interference' exercised by the governments of the E.U. in this Austrian political event appears to be a grave, unjustified, abuse.