Joseph Muscat’s project is to transform Malta into a liberal state. My contention is that his project is a travesty of liberalism.

In a liberal State, justice works. Court cases are managed professionally, delays avoided, alternative resolution mechanisms encouraged and given massive publicity and visibility, international commercial practices (such as international arbitration) rendered more understandable to all involved...

In a liberal State, education imparts to all children the skills to take care of money and avoid being ripped off.

In a liberal State, traffic is managed properly, and fast. Daily gridlock is bad for business and for the psychological well-being of the population. A liberal State enjoys excellent (not low-cost) air connections with other countries to facilitate trade, exchange of ideas, investments...

In a liberal State, the government pushes for the opening up of capital for export-oriented industry owned by local entrepreneurs. It dilutes bureaucracy for new inventions; incentivises new inventions, research and development, and other wealth-creating intellectual property; makes access to the stock market easier and attractive, by publicising it heavily.

In a liberal State, the environment is not ruthlessly and shamelessly raped, harassed and abused, but the freedom to enjoy it is safeguarded for future generations. People are allowed the freedom to live without the anxiety caused by savage over-development.

In a liberal State, the State does not get involved in shady deals but treats the National Health Service as the most sacred of sacred cows. It engages in healthy eating campaigns, discouraging junk food consumption.

A liberal State – with a social conscience – is all this and more. It is not a club whose two main objectives are the enrichment of its members (through corruption and shady deals) and the dismantlement of the country’s social fabric (by pushing the agenda of fringe groups).

A liberal State is constitutionally geared to ensure the proper, well-oiled functioning of its institutions and minimise abuse of power, by politicians and other PPEs.

In a liberal State, business should not depend on the government of the day to launch projects and see them through. Business should depend on rules applied and upheld in an equal fashion for one and all. This was the essence of the liberal-bourgeois revolution which begun 200 years ago in parts of Western Europe, not the demolition of the social fabric. France flirted with such silly ideas for 10 years from 1789 to 1799, and then for a long time adhered to a conservative social policy. The socially conservative period – which dominated the West – allowed the business class to consolidate its wealth. Malta needs that; the current demolition of the social fabric is not conducive to the creation of wealth. It will make almost everybody poorer.

* * *

No compassion for the liberals

The United Kingdom has embraced a heightened level of social liberalism.

The NHS website gladly announces that “one in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime” as if that were some national achievement to be proud of.

The UK has a humongous problem with loneliness. A few weeks ago, Theresa May even appointed a Minister for Loneliness.

Now, the London Times has published an article about the culture of neglect reigning at a Lothian hospital where old patients at the end of their lives were not given the care they needed, and were verbally and physically abused to boot. On a regular basis. An official report cites “a poor culture that lacks compassion, respect for patients and respect for colleagues”.

When you care only about yourself – not even about your (unborn) children – and about your liberty to do as you please, how can you practise compassion? When the dominant ideology fixates on the sole attainment of one’s pleasure and (slippery and, at times, delusional) self-actualisation, how can there be compassion? For the liberals, there is no compassion. Is this what we want for Malta?

* * *

Buleben

It now seems that after sending eviction letters to farmers and creating a veritable media fuss, the government is backing down on the crazy idea of building up huge swathes of pristine land in Buleben. What happened?

Is this really a government that listens?

I don’t know. However, this story reminded me of an anecdote a Belarussian friend once told me. When the government of Belarus takes a decision that turns out to be unpopular, the people take to the streets and protest. The protests are given a lot of prominence by the media (in this supposed dictatorship...). Following the ruckus, the President speaks to the people assuring them that it was a genuine mistake that the minister never really wanted to implement the measure, and so on and so forth. The government backs down and the people are happy because the government listens.

And the dictatorship that listens goes on. A sort of democratic dictatorship. Possibly even socially liberal.

* * *

Sandro Chetcuti and dog-dinner making

As usual, that paragon of brilliance and wisdom Saviour Balzan bungles up any argument he decides to tackle. The latest example of this soi-disant journalist’s cogent and coherent thinking was the attack on Sandro Chetcuti.

Now let me be clear. I don’t even know Mr Chetcuti, and I’m as disgusted as the next man with the appetite for destruction which characterises the “development” industry.

But is attacking Mr Chetcuti and his lobby the answer? What should developers do? Retire en masse? Go and spend the rest of their lives in a monastery to practise self-flagellation?

Saviour Balzan is as silly as a goose. These people have found the goose which lays the golden eggs and, despite the destruction, the government will let it lay till the goose is dead.

If Mr Balzan were honest in his journalism, he would attack the government not the developers’ lobby. The government has to find ways to open up new business opportunities for people like Sandro Chetcuti to channel their energy and entrepreneurship in ventures that don’t ruin our natural and urban environment forever.

Mr Chetcuti has no such duty. His only duty is to obey the law. It’s the government’s duty and responsibility to create a legislative framework to usher in economic liberalism. Instead, the government is wallowing in the mud of laissez-faire and doing next to nothing to promote real liberalism, by which I mean availability of venture capital, a courageous, visionary and lean bureaucracy, an efficient and egalitarian judicial system, etc. This is what makes a market economy work.

But, of course, Mr Balzan opens fire on Mr Chetcuti to save Joseph Muscat from well-deserved criticism.

What an expert at making a dog’s dinner of an argument he is!

* * *

Matteo Renzi

And, dulcis in fundo, Joseph Muscat’s Italian leftist liberal buddy (“He’s smarter (più furbo) than me” Dr Muscat had said about him to Le Iene) has been virtually wiped out from the Italian political scene. His party got more or less one-fifth of the vote.