During the days of the French National Assembly, the progressives would sit on the left, the moderates in the centre, and the conservatives on the right. The birth of the left and right political divide can be traced back to the French Revolution of 1789 with opponents of the Revolution being on the right and its proponents on the left. However, since 1789, the left and right divide has evolved and developed on numerous occasions.

Whilst defining leftism is very much straight forward, defining the right is not so much, or at least it has been given that outlook due to historical political developments.

The first reaction to right wing politics would be to refer to the dictatorial regimes of the 20th century and classify them as such. However here we would encounter a problem; can we say for example that Peron was right wing because he was a dictator whilst at the same time resting his power on the unions, something which the left tends to do? Stalin too was a dictator, as were Fidel Castro and Mao Zedong, but can we classify them as right wing? In truth, there can be both leftist and rightist dictatorships, hence it is not enough of a detail to automatically classify an individual as being either on the left or the right.

Another aspect to take into account is that the leftist typically relies on popular appeal, but then again many so called “right wing” dictators also rested on popular appeal to gain power, such as Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. But the movements of those individuals cannot really be classified as purely right wing, despite having some traces of right wing thought, especially when considering that both these individuals did not seek to restore old forms of government but to revolutionise society in their own image, something which in truth is inherently leftist and not much different to the Marxist - Leninist views on society. This is why for instance it is political ignorance and lazy thinking to classify individuals such as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Dolfuss on the same spectrum, because their philosophies were very much different from each other as were their respective national, historical contexts.

Another difficulty of defining the political right today is that most conservatives tend to simply want to conserve an established political order which may in fact be a political order based on leftist ideology. For instance, can we say that the British Conservative Party is truly conservative? It is conservative in the sense that it has conserved all the policies of the leftist Blairite Labour government which preceded it. But does that make it a right wing party? In short, it does not. If it were a right wing party it would have repealed much of the leftist laws enacted by the Labour government.

The same can be applied to the local political scene, where the historically conservative party of Malta, the Partit Nazzjonalista, would in fact not repeal any of the leftist laws enacted under Labour, such as those of Marijuana, same - sex marriage, open borders policy, etc…were it to one day enter government, at least not with the current crop administrating it. As such, it would be conservative when conserving what is already in place but in doing so it would also be an accomplice in furthering the left wing social revolutionary cause.

Hence it is not far-fetched to state that a number of so-called “rightist” conservative parties in Europe are good at conserving left wing policies but bad at being right wing. Ergo, identifying as a conservative does not equal being right wing. Another example I will use is the local use of the Mintoffian rhetoric by some so-called “right wing” figure heads. They think that by harking to nostalgia they will appear as right wing conservatives but can one really be called right wing if he is being nostalgic about Mintoff who was, as we say in Maltese, “Soċjalista bil-pedigree”. It’s a bit like if Giorgia Meloni were to be nostalgic about Craxi or Berlinguer. This also debunks the myth that nostalgic rhetoric in politics automatically makes you right wing.

We have established, more or less very briefly, who and what is not right wing. But ultimately, what does it mean to be on the political Right then?

As indicated in the beginning of this write-up, the terms left and right are traced back to the French Assembly of the Ancien Regime where the monarchists would sit on the right and the opposition on the left. However the opposition in the Ancien Regime did not inherently mean that it was opposed to the Monarchy. On the contrary, it was in fact “His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition”, which worked hand in hand with the King to solve socio - political issues. Today, right wing has become a derogatory term to refer to anyone who is anti - liberal or anti - leftist, especially in America where pundits who smoke marijuana and complain against political correctness are labelled far - right, an offence to authentic right wing personnel.

A more serious definition of right wing is that of an ideal which is hierarchical in nature, affirms ancient traditions, and orders society from above in a spiritual manner. Right wing thought reaches its full meaning when both liberalism and socialism are rejected, and an organic society based on nobility and aristocracy, and governed by authority is advocated for.

An organic society is one which is above government engineering and bureaucracy, and is self-sustaining in many ways. It is a society governed by an authoritarian state in which its societal components are voluntarily loyal. As such, being right wing means affirming and propagating ancient traditions; military and religious, which are in place in order to form a good society based on the principles of family, homogeneity, piety, hierarchy and tradition. The right views progress not in terms of technological progress or democratic liberation but through the development of the culture, heritage and traditions of a society.

It is true that traditions are meant to make good people and maintain societal order, however it is also true that they may become repressive when they are only used to enforce order without the moral aspect. The Prussian State which united Germany for instance was an example of such a repression, where its subjects had to bend to the will of the State in an act of obedience. This contrasts with the Monarchical Austrian State which was organic and governed through the mutual loyalty of its subjects. 

Being on the political right therefore entails upholding the ancient traditions of a nation, both moral and cultural, in an active and intelligent manner. It entails countering revolutionary experiments rather than being swallowed up by them through compromises for the sake of maintaining political power. Before the right can attempt to save the West it must firstly discover itself and its mission.