The article by Ranier Fsadni on liberals and liberalism (January 29) makes interesting reading. The basis of liberalism is the belief in the right of individual liberty under a common authority to prevent it from degenerating into open licence. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was also associated with radicalism and progressive causes.

Traditionally, liberalism started off with the presumption that state intervention was unnecessary and futile (the doctrine of laissez faire), which line of thought was later to become anathema to radical and, especially, socialist thinkers. In England, up to 1914, the Liberal Party was one of the great two parties in the country that alternated in government, the other being the Conservative Party. Before the formation of the Labour Party in England in 1900, most socialists and trade unionists backed the Liberal Party. It was the "People's Party" with which, instinctively, the working classes could identify, but it also attracted a large cross-section of the middle classes. Its eventual decline in Britain after 1918 could be attributed to the rise of the Labour Party.

According to Dr Fsadni, "The best of liberalism (US and EU) today is ensconced in academe." This, to my understanding, means that liberalism is today restricted to university study and is no longer a political force to be reckoned with. This, I think, is a sweeping statement, although it is true that the heydays of liberalism as a great political force are now over. On the other hand, a number of political parties around the word still profess to be liberal (or neo-liberals).

Today, the term "liberalism" tends to be loose and flexible in the political context. A political party can be liberal but right- or left-leaning according to the political development and orientation of the country in question.

In Canada, for example, the Liberal Party is a great political force that has been in government several times. In the absence of a proper progressive movement in Canada, it espouses a centre-left doctrine.

The Liberal Party of Australia, with a strong Labour Party (now in government) opposing it, is more of a conservative party. Its right-wing leanings became even more pronounced under the leadership of John Howard, who was Prime Minister for three consecutive terms.

In the EU and the US, liberalism, although often on the fringes of politics (as a force within both the mainstream parties and independent parties standing on their own), consists of mixed political leanings that could embrace diverse shades of politics from left to right, with the centre always seeming to be the fulcrum.

One can state that, today, many of the causes of liberalism have been absorbed by most parties in Western democracies, including the Democratic Party in the US and, to some extent, also the Republican Party.

Dr Fsadni also made a passing reference to George Borg Olivier and to the "fiery speech on the subject" he had made as deputy leader of the Nationalist Party. In this regard, one other author has also called Dr Borg Olivier a "liberal patriot".

It is certain that if there ever was a politician in Malta who was instinctively allergic to any forms of "ism", that person was Dr Borg Olivier. That he was a patriot is undeniable and it is a term he would have been particularly proud to carry after his death. But I think he would have been most surprised to be defined as a "liberal" although, I am told, he was known to have sympathies towards some famous liberal figures with Christian leanings, such as William Gladstone. Probably, he also had sympathies for conservative politicians with comparable inclinations, such as Winston Churchill.

To my view, Dr Borg Olivier was an old-style Maltese politician who was above all a "nationalist". My impression is that he was not particularly enamoured of the centre-right policies that the new breed of young nationalist politicians were drifting towards in the 1970s and 1980s.

Dr Borg Olivier was, above all, a man of the world. A politician from a little island in the extreme southern tip of Europe rooted in Catholic tradition and culture, but never a bigot.

Was it not Dr Borg Olivier who strongly defended the Church's rights during the independence negotiations but, at the same time, was not averse to changing the order of precedence of bishops? Was it not Dr Borg Olivier who, as a young Prime Minister, openly showed his opposition to the Church's policy of sending unattended child migrants to Australia? And all this at a time when the Church was led by the formidable Archbishop Michael Gonzi.

The best comment on Dr Borg Olivier's beliefs as a nationalist rooted in Southern European tradition and culture can be found in his own words at the independence debate at Marlborough House in 1963. "There is in Malta a unified people with an ancient European civilisation, a 900-year-old national flag, a glorious history and a centuries-old culture with its roots in old Rome and the other great Mediterranean civilisations - a people with strong national feelings and a deep sense of attachment to freedom, both national and individual." More words are superfluous.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.