A year or so ago, there were persistent reports that the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) was going to change its name into Partit Nazzjonali tal-Poplu (National People’s Party). The reasons commentators were putting forward were that, in this day and age, the term ‘nationalist’ had negative far-right connotations.
That event did not materialise. With the benefit of hindsight, it was perhaps a blessing in disguise that the change did not happen, since, a few months later, a new party was formed – branded as the Partit Popolari (Popular Party). According to media reports this party is a far-right party.
Nonetheless, many still have issues with the term ‘nationalist’ as this is perceived as portraying a rightist agenda. I will not go into the merits of how the Maltese voter thinks, I have done that elsewhere. What I would like to dwell on instead is what the term ‘nationalist’ might mean nowadays, in Malta.
The PN’s nationalism is a type of civic nationalism. Perhaps similar to that advocated by Ernest Renan and Hans Kohn. A type of nationalism realising that modern democracies cannot survive without a backbone outlining ‘the people’ as a political unit worthy of self-determination and self-government, sharing a common destiny and a common vision. A common-good vision encompassing the values of freedom, tolerance, equity, inclusiveness and individual rights.
I feel that the PN is indeed a heterogeneous silent coalition of Christian democrats, liberals, liberal-conservatives and conservative-liberals and anything in between. A centrist type of political grouping. It moves on the political spectrum at times towards the left (like being in favour of joining the European Union - 2004) and at times towards the right (like achieving independence from the United Kingdom - 1964). The point I am trying to stress here is that the two common factors of these two ostensibly politically antithetical events are context and national interest.
The PN as a political force has always been aware that national and international circumstances may change, sometimes drastically, as to warrant, in a particular era, the necessity to free the country from an old declining empire and start navigating the ship-of-state towards a common destiny as a nation among nations. On the other hand, the PN has been flexible enough to decipher the signs of times and move towards interdependence with other sibling nations (as Giuseppe Mazzini would put it), spearheading economic comfort and political relevance for its people. Therefore, context has always been an ideological component of PN’s political leaning.
The other common factor in the two above-mentioned events is national interest. The PN has been proven right at least twice vis-à-vis these choices (independence and EU accession). Firstly, Labour’s consolidation of independence through the creation of our republic (1974) and , subsequently, through national freedom (1979) proves that independence was needed and actually paved the way. Secondly, the innumerable benefits gained through EU accession (common market, social progress, freedom of movement, etc.) confirmed that choice. Additionally, picture COVID-19 struck Malta without EU solidarity.
The PN is a heterogeneous silent coalition of Christian democrats, liberals, liberal-conservatives and conservative-liberals- Alan Xuereb
Being a nationalist, then, within the Nationalist Party always meant having this love towards the Maltese people. Roger Scruton calls it oikophilia, love of home, not meant in an exclusionist, xenophobic and egocentric manner but in a more globalised sort of thinking. While recognising the fact that our planet has become an ever-growing interconnected global village, the PN always looked towards the importance of interdependence.
The PN was aware that no man is an island and humans need communion in society to flourish. Correspondingly, an island like Malta needs this interconnectedness with other nations. However, I think the future of politics is in the evolution of the concept of subsidiarity, with this notion of oikophilia playing an important role in its growth. After all, who better than a family can take care of its home?
Make no mistake about this. Love of home does not mean that whatever the government of that ‘home’ does should be approved or defended, as some like to interpret it. It means exactly the contrary.
If the government of the day messes up the country, one’s love of home should push one to restore the people’s well-being. Even by denouncing overtly and internationally that government. This is the difference between loving your country and loving your government. Even in a family, a wife may report an abusing husband.
After all, Malta is all those people who decided to call Malta their home. Loving Malta means loving its people and loving where they live. Not prejudicing their future through besmirching its reputation and through ruining its physical environment irreparably.
That is what being a nationalist should mean.
Alan Xuereb is a lawyer, linguist and political philosophy author.