In his monumental work Austria, 1867–1955, Boyer presents a detailed account of Austrian history. Spanning over 1,000 pages, the book traces Austria’s path from the twilight of the Habsburg monarchy, through the First and Second Republics, and into the Kreisky era, while shedding light on influential figures such as Karl Lueger and Karl Renner. The German edition has just been published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW) and will be presented at the Wien Museum on November 26.

Boyer, a member of the ÖAW and Dean of the College at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2023, focuses especially on the process of democratization. He examines the liberal reforms of the monarchy, the bold social innovations of Red Vienna, the collapse of the republic in the 1930s, and the successful democratic revival after 1945. His key insight: democracy is built not only through constitutions and institutions, but also through a vibrant civil society that actively sustains it.

In your book, you examine Austrian history from 1867 to 1955 through the lens of democratization. How would you define the concept of democracy in the Austrian historical context, and how did this definition evolve over the course of your analysis?

John W. Boyer: Well, democracy – or rather the practice of democracy – requires several key elements. First, it requires a constitution that gives the public some control over the government, whether that government is a monarchy or a republic. Austria received a constitution in 1867, but it was not truly democratic because voting rights were severely limited: only certain men, primarily wealthier taxpayers, were allowed to vote. Over the course of the empire, between 1867 and 1918, the electorate gradually expanded to include more men, particularly working-class men. Finally, in 1918, adult women gained the right to vote as well.

For the first time there was a democratic constitution?

Boyer: Exactly. By 1918, Austria had arrived at a fully democratic constitution and a democratic public. The new Kelsen Constitution further solidified and legitimized this process. However, for democracy to function in practice, it also requires a citizenry that believes in democratic principles and in the idea of an Austrian nation. The second half of my book focuses on how Austria achieved not just a formal democracy but a functioning, working democracy. In short, it begins with the liberal constitution of 1867 and the gradual expansion of the franchise, culminating in a more inclusive democracy by 1918 and especially after 1945.

How do you assess the role of political parties, particularly the Christian Socials and the Social Democrats, in the trajectory of Austrian democratic development?

Boyer: This is really at the heart of the book. By around 1910, Austrian politics in the areas that became the Austrian republic (after 1918) was dominated by two parties: the Christian Socials and the Social Democrats. These were mass parties, created in the 1890s, and they filled the political space left by the collapse of the Liberals and the pan-German parties.

These two parties inherited much of the sovereignty and political power of the Crown after 1918. They drafted the Constitution of 1920 and created the Republic. Yet, despite their central role in founding the democracy, they ultimately struggled to manage it. The Social Democrats lost control of Vienna in 1934, and the Christian Socials lost control of the Austrian state in 1938. Austrian political history, in many ways, is the story of these two parties and their successors, which continue to have enormous influence in Austrian public life today.

You have engaged extensively with Vienna’s municipal politics in the First Republic and with socalled Red Vienna. How do you explain the significance of the social reforms associated with Red Vienna for the development of the modern welfare state in Austria?

Boyer: Red Vienna can be seen as a kind of utopian project—utopian in a positive sense. The city faced enormous social distress: hunger, poverty, poor housing conditions, inadequate healthcare, and limited educational opportunities. Red Vienna represented a bold attempt to address these issues using the power of the state, particularly taxation, to redistribute resources and improve living conditions.

Many of these programs established precedents that were restored after the Nazi era. By the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, there was a general sense that many of the initiatives pioneered in Red Vienna should be applied across all of Austria, not just the city itself. Red Vienna set policy and institutional precedents, creating a demand for decent housing and social services nationwide. The full development of the Austrian welfare state, however, did not occur until the 1960s and 1970s.

Turning to the 1930s, what causes do you identify for the failure of the Democratic Republic during that period?

Boyer: That is a very difficult question because it is complicated, and there is no single answer. The Austrian electorate was deeply divided, with strong ideological splits between socialists and conservative Catholics—divisions that existed even before World War I. The war itself caused profound destruction, followed by postwar inflation and the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s and early 1930s.

In addition, international factors, particularly the rise of the Nazis in Germany after 1933, compounded the crisis. Austria, a small and relatively impoverished republic, faced citizens who wanted a democracy to serve their own side rather than a functioning democracy for all. The combination of economic hardship, social division, and external pressures made sustaining democracy extremely difficult. While there may have been alternative strategies, it is hard to see how a durable democracy could have emerged under these conditions. Only after 1945 did circumstances improve sufficiently to build a functioning, sustainable democracy.

What lessons can be drawn from the democratic new beginning after 1945 for contemporary democracy?

Boyer: By the 1950s and 1960s, the two major parties had agreed to share state power rather than trying to destroy one another. The state they rebuilt rested on a more solid foundation: a citizenry that increasingly identified as Austrian rather than German and was willing to accept what I call cultural nationalism. This created a functioning democratic structure with legitimacy and loyalty from its citizens.

In 1994 Austrians voted to join the European Union, marking another chapter in Austrian democracy. This new “democratic nation state” of Austria was prepared to succeed within a broader European political and administrative framework, and in many ways, Europe confirmed and supported this democratic experiment.

What do you think?

Boyer: For me, the key lesson is that democracy requires both institutional frameworks and a citizenry that identifies with and believes in the system. A functioning democracy is built over time, often through trial, failure, and reform.