Wednesday, February 2, 2000; Page A20

THE ASCENDANCY of the far-right party of Joerg Haidar to likely partnership in Austria's government poses a familiar problem for democracies: how to react when groups inimical to the values of a society come to power by democratic means? Sometimes such forces threaten democracy directly; sometimes they frighten onlookers for other reasons, such as (in Mr. Haidar's case) repeated friendly references to the Nazis coupled with fiercely xenophobic views. Blocking the democratic process in such cases generally produces backlash and even less democracy; staying silent can spell complicity.

The European Union, faced with Austria's apparent readiness to invite Mr. Haidar's Freedom Party into a coalition government, first tried a hard interventionist line: Fourteen ministers on Monday declared they would cut off any such government from normal EU dealings, refusing to "promote or accept any bilateral official contacts on a political level." Backlash was immediate in a country already known for circling the wagons at any hint of international pressure: Mr. Haidar's party and the conservative People's Party yesterday announced a coalition deal. (President Thomas Klestil could still reject the proposal but is not expected to.) That leaves the European Union, and the United States, too, to decide how far their disapproval should go.

Though Mr. Haidar has followed each of his inflammatory pro-Nazi statements over the years with apologies (in 1991 he said the Third Reich had "orderly employment policies," in 1995 that many Waffen SS veterans were "decent people of good character who stick to their convictions"), he and his party raise echoes of the 1930s that are a good deal too clear for comfort; repugnant is one word that comes to mind. As a matter of sovereignty, Austrians are entitled to vote for whomever they please. Other governments are entitled--indeed, obliged--to use diplomatic and other means at their disposal to make clear their condemnation.