Europe breathed a sigh of relief last week when the populist right-wing candidate in Austria’s presidential election, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party, was defeated by Alexander Van der Bellen, a pro-EU independent and former leader of the Greens.

The election was extremely close and Mr Van der Bellen, who received 50.3 per cent of the popu­lar vote, defeated Mr Hofer, who got 49.7 per cent, by only 31,000 votes. So the EU narrowly avoided getting its first far-right head of State; instead it got its first elected Green head of State, which is surely a better alternative.

However, the fact that Mr Hofer was so very close to winning should serve as a wake-up call not only for Austria but for the whole of Europe. As French Prime Minister Manuel Valls tweeted: “It’s a relief to see the Austrians reject populism and extremism. Everyone in Europe must draw lessons from this.”

Austria is one of the few European countries that directly elects its head of State, whose role is mainly ceremonial. The President, therefore, is not the head of the government – the Chancellor is – as Austria has a parliamentary system of government. Austria’s Presi­dent, however, does have one important power, that of dissolving Parliament without the consent of the government of the day.

The first round of the presidential election was held last month and Mr Hofer came first with 35.1 per cent of the vote, sending shockwaves throughout Europe. An even bigger shock, however, was the fact that the candidates of the two mainstream centrist parties, the Social Democrats and the People’s Party – which have domi­nated Austrian post-war politics – were both eliminated in the first round of voting and received only 11.3 per cent and 11.1 per cent respectively of the vote.

Mr Van der Bellen got 21.3 per cent of the vote in the first round, followed by another independent candidate, Irmgard Griss, who received 18.9 per cent of the vote.

Support for the two main centrist parties in Austria has been dwindling for quite a few years now, with many people concerned about the state of the eco­nomy – which used to be a star performer in the EU – as well as critical of the coalition government’s handling of the refugee crisis.

There also exists public disillusionment over the dominance of these two centrist parties and their deep-rooted system of party patro­nage. Many top public sector jobs, for example, are often divided bet­ween leading exponents of these two parties, leading to resent­ment among ordinary voters.

The fact that the last two govern­ments in Austria have consisted of a ‘grand coalition’ bet­ween Social Democrats and the People’s Party has certainly not helped and has encouraged voters to turn to other parties.

Mr Hofer’s campaign had targeted anti-EU feelings and fears about migrants, stressing that Islam has no place in Austria. In the end, however, the majority of voters did not want to risk giving the presidency to Mr Hoffer, whose right-wing Freedom Party belongs to the Europe of Nations and Freedom bloc in the European Parliament, together with other parties such as France’s National Front, the Netherlands’ Party of Freedom, Italy’s Northern League, Germany’s Alternative for Germany and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang.

The Freedom Party has long been part of Austria’s political scene, unlike some of the other right-wing populist parties springing up in Europe. Up until 1993 it belonged to the Liberal International, as the party’s beliefs were always a mixture of liberalism (of the right) and pan-German nationalism. In fact, between 1983 and 1986 the party governed in coalition with the Social Democrats.

Mr Hofer’s campaign had targeted anti-EU feelings and fears about migrants, stressing that Islam has no place in Austria

In the 1990s, however, the party turned decisively to the right, under the leadership of Jörg Haider, resulting in its liberals splitting off and forming a new party. It has to be said that the Freedom Party always had its fair share of Nazi sympathisers (certainly not all of them) and it is also fair to say that unlike the Germans, some sections of Austrian society have not yet properly come to terms with the country’s Nazi past, so this is important to keep in mind when explaining how such a party can gain so many votes.

In the 1999 general election the Freedom Party won 27 per cent of the votes, more than in any pre­vious election – beating the centre-right People’s Party for the first time by a small margin. Consequently, in early 2000, the People’s Party agreed to form a coalition government with the Freedom Party, which lasted until 2002. This coalition was repeated from 2002 to 2006.

At the beginning of 2000 the EU applied limited sanctions on the Austrian government – in terms of shunning diplomatic contacts – to protest at the inclusion of a right-wing populist party in the coalition – but this was deemed counter­productive, and contacts were resumed after nine months.

What does the Freedom Party’s strong result in last week’s presidential election say about the future of the party in Austria?

In the last general election three years ago the party got 20.5 per cent of the vote, nothing like the 35.1 per cent and 49.7 per cent it received in the first of second round of the presidential election. Can it repeat its success at the next general election in 2018?

First of all, people were happy to vote for the Freedom Party in last week’s election, knowing that the office of the President is a largely ceremonial one. So it could easily have been a protest vote designed to send a strong signal to the two established parties that people have had enough with ‘politics as usual’ in Austria.

Secondly, a lot will depend on how the centrist coalition res­ponds to this vote. Lessons have to be learned, and people’s concerns over migration and the patronage of the two main centrist parties have to be taken into consideration. Both the Social Democrats and the People’s Party need to reconnect with Austria’s citizens.

Both the Austrian government as well as the European Union as a whole need to come to terms with the migration crisis, while of course, remaining faithful to the bloc’s core values.

The migration deal signed between Turkey and the EU (which unfortunately hangs in the balance) has already started to put the brakes on migration flows into Europe. Should the accord remain in place it is likely there will be fewer asylum seekers in Austria, and hence less support for the Freedom Party.

Austria also needs to come to terms with the fact that per capita it sends the second highest number of foreign jihadists, after Belgium, to fight in Syria and Iraq; half of them are of Chechen origin. This fact surely boosted support for Mr Hofer. A reassessment of Austria’s integration policies would be in order.

What is worrying about last week’s vote is that support for Mr Hofer was very strong among blue collar workers – he received almost 90 per cent of the vote from this group of voters.

This should be of great concern to the Social Democrats and something for the party to deal with prior to the next election. It is also something other centrist parties in Europe should keep in mind.

It is also interesting to note that 60 per cent of men supported Mr Hofer while 60 per cent of women backed Mr Van der Bellen, perhaps suggesting that women are more tolerant than men.