SALZBURG
These frescos (1150) can be found at NonnBerg, the oldest nunnery in Germany. Remarkable is, that they are influenced by Byzantium. Some specialists declared this being a banal coincidence, not aware, that the same phenomenon can be found in S.’s BookIlluminations. (The “Salzburger GiantBibles” were in Europe - meant F.Heer - the most outstanding & opulent ones once.) Later, Gothic painters and churches (as was noticed by K.Oettinger and others) also used the triumphalism of Byzantium, Rome - “Rome of the north”: S.’s ArchBishops had the unique privilege to appoint and crown their AuxiliaryBishops themselves, were for centuries legati nati (~nuncios) of the pope north of the Alps and primas Germaniae – and anticipated the opulent Baroque.
Their hieratical statism and monumentalism demonstrate already a ceremoniousness, which is typical for the music of MOZART (or M.HAYDN or H.I.F.BIBER [whose “MissaSalisburgensis” copied the RomanColossalStyle: 53 voices!]) and is – according to an acquaintance abroadly born, prof. W.Speyer – still special for Salzburg (certainly supported by the festivals for theatre and ClassicalMusic [it is claimed, that S. has the highest PerCapita-density of ClassicalConcerts worldwide]), what this study
www.openaccess-salzburg.at/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NFG_Die-Salzburger-Milieulandschaft_2011.pdffound out, too: S. has rather low wages (p.22; tourism is a factor here) and high prices (once again strongly caused by tourism), but Salzburgians spend a lot (p.23) for theatre&opera (p.25+26) and StatusSymbols (p.24).
And this Byzantine/Roman/Baroque absolutism fits very well to S.’s SocialStructure. Bavaria&Austria in general weren’t an area with a numerous gentry nor a vital bourgeoisy – “Bayernlant ist Bauernlant” (“BavarianLand is PeasantsLand”) wrote AVENTINUS centuries ago. S. - their old spiritual&intellectual capital, before the surge of Vienna&Munich - was extreme in this regard: The ruling ArchBishops prevented the creation of aristocratic rivals (thus S. has – very different to Bavaria&Austria – only few monasteries [reeves!]), SalzburgCity has not more than 1 NobilityPalace, in the XIXth only 27 aristocratic families were found, without feudalism the LandTag was of minimal importance and the ArchBishops – generally decent ClergyMen – behaved, when challenged, in the MiddleAges already like RenaissanceTyrants and in the Baroque like protomodern SemiDictators. Their early and in WestEurope uncommon absolutism was strongly enabled by their wealth – Venice’s ambassador in the Reich reported in the XVIIth, that S. had in the S.I.R. the second-highest PerCapita-earnings (after Cologne) -, based on trading (Venice-Germany) and mainly on mining (especially of – nomen est omen – salt, once “the white gold”).
The XVIIIth and XIXth brought an impoverishment and slow PopulationGrowth, on the surface only because most mines were exhausted and nearly no industry present, subsurface caused by the lack of an innovative (upper)MiddleClass.
Additionally S. was occupied by NAPOLEON and his bavarian allies, since 1816 it was austrian (as the fifth quarter/wheel of UpperAustria...) .
1861 its independence was restored, but the Land(Tag) had initially no possessions, as quasi everything had belonged to the ArchBishops and their legal successor, the emperor. (The fortress above the city, for example, was handed over by Vienna to the Land only recently.)
Monarchy (1861-1918):
the CatholicConservatives/ChristianSocials were generally stronger than the Liberals/GermanNationalists. The wealthy farmers in PinzGau (district ZellAmSee, the inneralpine valleys in the SW) and FlachGau (district SalzburgUmgebung, the area around the city), who were sitting in the FirstClass (“GroßGrundBesitzer-Kurie” [=SquireCuria]), were often decisive in the LandTag.
“El Catolicismo, el Liberalismo y el Socialismo” (DONOSO CORTES) were at that time also the 3 camps in Austria, of course. Clearly distinct, only 2 crossed them: The (in)famous K.Lueger from Vienna moved from DemocraticLiberalism to ChristianSocialism, while the (nowadays unknown but once influential) federal MP G.Lienbacher from Salzburg had been a Kath.u.Kons. in the liberal era (before 1878), but switched to the Liberals/GermanNationalists in the conservative era. (He disliked, that during the “IronRing”-coalitions the german Cath.Cons. endorsed Slavic autonomy in exchange for support in the federal parliament.) Lienbacher established his own MicroParty: the GermanConservatives, who found support among irreligious&rich farmers (not in the cath. upperPinzGau, but in the slightly urbanized areas around the city).
What demonstrates a certain urban influence: After all the city of Salzburg is pars pro toto, providing its name to the whole Land.
First Republic (1918-1938):
LandTag-ElectionResults:
LB=Landbund (german-national farmers), 1919: PWL=PinzgauerWirtschaftsL. (priest expelled by CSP); 1927: WSB=Wirtschaftl.StändeB. (advocating a parliament with classes/tiers instead of different parties); 1932 HB=HeimatBlock (authoritarian)
As can be seen, the ChristianSocials and the germannat./anticlerical farmers had 1922 a joined list with the Nationalsocialists (who were at that time partly still supportive of liberal MultiParty-democracy) and as a result S. had in spring 1922 the first Nazi-minister! In coalition with the various germannat. sects and used by the SocialDemocrats against the ChristianSocials, the Nazis were somewhat established.
1927 the female voters went CSP 54.6% vs. SDAP 27.4% vs. GD+NS 11% (men: CSP 42.4% vs. SDAP 36.1% vs. GD+NS 12%). The women made up 57.0% of all CSP-voters, 43.9% of SD, 48.6% of GD+NS and 40.8% of LB.
The CS tried to capitalize on their regional PM Rehrl (who had written the Land-constitution by the age of 19), but it didn’t work very well, as the LandTag-elections 1919 & 1927 were held around the federal elections and in 1932 ~3/4 of Austrians had regional/local elections (as well as ~4/5 of the Germans). Also forward-looking investments of Rehrl (house for the festival aso.) were scandalized. The long campaign 1932 had the first modern one ad personam, conducted amusingly by NSDAP (celebrating a judge as their FrontRunner, although Hitler was their real Führer, of course).
Surveys have shown, that NSDAP did often best in localities, where their top-ranking politicians came from (probably caused by the fact, that they had been a MicroParty in the 1920ies). The city and PinzGau were among their best districts austrianwide.
Second Republic (1945-2018):
LandTag-ElectionResults:
S. had the second/third-largest share of convicted NSDAP-members (9.2%; Austria: 7.5%), thousands of them concentrated in a huge camp outside the city. No surprise, that this was fertile soil for GermanNationalism (in 1956 24% of the Viennese continued to define themselves as Germans, but 63% in S.) and general discontent, e.g. in 1948 the WorkersCouncils-elections brought an austrianwide record of Independents (37.67%; SPÖ 53.89%, KPÖ 7.72%, ÖVP 0.72% [!]) . A survey conducted 1948 for the American troops revealed, that when asked, which regime they preferred, in S.-city 2.6% chose Communism, 43.2% NationalSocialism and 50.4% neither (Linz: 3.0%/29.4%/62.8%; Vienna: 6.1%/35.6%/50.1%). Interestingly, it was found out, that the (ex)Nazis wanted the creation of a new party in the mid (probably in order to be respected and reintegrated), while the HomeComers from the war and the refugees (in S. a huge crowd: 50.000) favoured a right one. Based on these results, the conductor of this study - H.Kraus, a liberal opponent of Hitlerism - founded the VdU, whose HeadQuarters was based in S., which was at that time not only geographically “the heart in the heart of Europe” (v.HOFMANNSTHAL), but also the centre of nonSoviet Austria: While Vienna&EastAustria had a socialistic regime of ÖVP+SPÖ+KPÖ, who controlled quite everything, the US-military established in S. an “open society” with independent radio and NewsPaper (“SalzburgerNachrichten/SN”, one of Austria’s 4 QualityDailies, the only one outside Vienna).
S. was also uniquely “open” in PostWar-Austria, because West- and East-Austria were dominated by 1 party, in MidAustria UpperA. and Styria had normally ÖVP-majorities, only S. had usually none. This resulted in some sort of tacit agreement between ÖVP and SPÖ: “The Land” belonged to ÖVP (e.g.: 1959 the Land’s budget of 250 million AustrianSchilling was split ÖVP 220, SPÖ 30, FPÖ 0.35; 1999-2004 8 departments were “black”, 5 “red” aso.), “The City” (in Census1971 over 30% lived directly in the capital!, since then many moved to the SubUrbs) to SPÖ. The vast bulk of laws were decided in the times of ProportionalRepresentation in the government (so before 1999) unanimously (1984-1989: 99.70%, 1989-1994: 98.62%, 1994-1996: 93.75% aso. - “the Salzburger climate”).
In FederalElections – here are the results (italics: EP-elections):
... - S. is divided since the 1990ies into 3 units, which fit quite well:
The city: Low participation, VdU/FPÖ’s best district austrianwide for decades (nowadays one of their worst), first GREEN-minister worldwide (1982), strong NEOS.
The SubUrbs: Includes the south of the city and nowadays nearly all of FlachGau&TennenGau, economically extremely thriving (many foreign companies) – ÖVP/NEOS/GREENS.
The innerAlpine valleys: Worse demographically&economically (the discrepancy CentralArea-FringeArea is the largest one in Austria), these days more FPÖ and SPÖ (and traditional ÖVP).
ÖVP-Salzburg: While the austrianChristianSocials/ÖVP have generally been a party performing best in rural&remote&reactionary areas (quasi in Highlands/Borders/NW-Wales), Salzburg’s CSP/ÖVP have been - similar to the British Tories, the supposedly standoffish & snobistic Salzburgians have sometimes been nicknamed “Austria’s Englander”– more urban. Very different to the other regions of Austria none of S.’s PrimeMinisters has been a farmer. In contrast they – like Winkler, Rehrl, Klaus (federalPM 1964-1970), Lechner, Haslauer Sr., Katschthaler, Schausberger, Haslauer Jr. - have been quite urban (and often snobistic). Linked with this is, that the cath.cons. StudentOrganisation (“CartellVerband/CV”) have had here hugest influence, clearly more than in all other ÖVP-regions. A “LodenSchickeria” (=Loden-InCrowd) is still existing, at least in S..
FPÖ-Salzburg (and – of course - Carinthia) delivered the federal party 1 of the 2 “BasicMandates”, which were necessary before 1971 for coming into the NationalRat. And only in Carinthia, Vorarlberg and S. FPÖ held ministries before J.Haider. Tempi passati: As can be seen at the OverView of FederalElections, FPÖ has fallen here recently below NationalAverage. Lots of FPÖ’s (semi)urban FreeLancers, BusinessMen, farmers have
moved to ÖVP, graduates even to the GREENS.
SPÖ-Salzburg: Far away from Vienna and its depraved “intellectuals” the party relied for a long time mainly on NonGraduates, RailWay-employees being especially important. In consequence, the party was quite right. For example: Fearing the RedArmy, its leaders distributed secretly CIA-weapons... Or: When Gabriele Burgstaller (“Gabi”, daughter of ÖVP-farmers) won 17/36 seats 2004 she replied to a fuddled left journalist from Vienna “I am not so crazy to form a coalition with the GREENS!” and had to be put under severe pressure by the federal leadership for allowing abortions to be conducted in S.’s hospitals.
So, 2004 SPÖ became the strongest party for the first time, caused by unpopular cuts of the federal government (ÖVP&FPÖ/BZÖ), an all too arrogant regional PrimeMinister, quarrels within ÖVP and Mrs.Nice “Gabi”. Opposition would have been awful for a PatronageParty like ÖVP and they had to be very glad, that “Gabi” left their ministers ÖVP’s CoreCompetences (Economy, AgriCulture, Family). In 2009 Haslauer Jr. was negotiating with SPÖ and FPÖ parallelly, but FPÖ’s FrontMan Schnell (who has split from FPÖ and runs 2018 under “FPS”) was more interested in increasing his MedicalPractice. ÖVP was allowed to choose between PersonnelAdministration and Finance and took Personnel – what was a lucky decision, when it came out in December 2012, that 300-400 million Euro had been lost in speculation. Another luck for ÖVP was, that - via lot! - not FPÖ (which was supported by SPÖ) was leading the EnquiryCommittee, but GREENS’ Mrs.Rößler, whose new reputation enabled in the SnapElections 2013 a majority for ÖVP+GREENS+T.Stronach. Haslauer Jr. was negotiating a coalition excellently (no wonder – we are relatives...): ÖVP got the “hard” power (Presidency, Personnel, Finance, hospitals), but the soft power – what the Länder are really responsible for (SpatialPlanning, Natural&EnvironmentalProtection) – went largely to the GREENS. TeamStronach fell apart soonly, of course, but ÖVP+GREENS ran smoothly.
SPÖ and FPÖ criticised them not more than moderately, because both would like to become Haslauer’s bride.
The OpinionPolls:
Hard to believe, that ÖVP is so low. S. is booming, Haslauer is the most popular politician presently (according to IMAS 83:17, NEOS-man 67:33, SPÖ-man 66:34, FPÖ-woman 45:55, GREENS-woman 43:57; direct election of PM: Haslauer 59, SPÖ 12, GREENS 7, FPÖ&NEOS 3, FPS 2; 84:12 satisfaction with the regional government). Probably the PollingInstitutes will have once again underestimated the incumbent (as in LowerA., Tyrol, Carinthia).
My guess is:
40% ÖVP
26% SPÖ
15% FPÖ
10% GREENS
06% NEOS
02% FPS
01% KPÖ
00% CPÖ