After Independence, one day to rule them all?

The perennial question about Malta’s five national days was briefly reignited by last week’s celebration of the 50th anniversary of independence.

Do we really need so many? Some argue that in a polarised country such as ours, commemorating anniversaries tied to particular political parties only serves to keep the flame of old political animosities alive.

Should we have just one national day? Which one?

Maltatoday asked three academics for their thoughts.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IN OUR COMMENTS SECTION OR SEND YOUR LETTER TO THE EDITOR on [email protected]

Prof. Dominic Fenech

Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Malta

Dominic Fenech: 'The Republic at least represents what we want ourselves to be, a nation and a society that has come of age'.

I don’t think it matters much, and each attempt to choose one day over the others ends in grief, with one side railing against the other, in the name of national unity, naturally. Besides which, ‘national unity’ sounds too much like an abstraction. ‘National maturity’ sounds a better ideal, but that would require first that one side of the political divide desist from the tedious litany of claims that its history was good while the other side’s history was bad.

As to which day to choose should we opt for one national day, I would suggest perhaps Republic Day. It’s the one occasion when a major constitutional step was decided by the votes of both sides of the political divide. In symbolism it’s stronger than independence. Independence defines Malta in relation to its role as a former British colony. It made us a state, but not a nation. Unlike many other colonies of the European empires, Malta was a nation long before that. The Republic at least represents what we want ourselves to be, a nation and a society that has come of age.

Prof. Henry J. Frendo

Director, Institute of Maltese Studies, University of Malta

Henry Frendo: 'Joseph Muscat is being wise in coming to terms with history'

My view is that Mintoff’s MLP after 1958 did not fight for Independence any less hard than Borg Olivier’s PN. They were even more aggressive with ‘British get out’ etc. Whether that helped Mintoff at all with the British is a moot point. Moreover, had Borg Olivier not had Mintoff’s support in principle, it would have been more difficult for him to wrangle the grant of Independence for Malta. Although he had 26 out of 50 seats he would have had four parties against him.

The disagreement was mainly about the church/religion question which Borg Olivier could hardly concede since he would have lost the referendum about the Independence Constitution, when he wanted Independence above all else.

Mintoff’s demanding over-idealistic posture would hardly have motivated the British to let go of Malta without any agreement whatever, at the height of the Cold War, and with pretensions like calling new elections, out of the Commonwealth, any agreements after he had been given Independence, a Republic, etc. 

Borg Olivier’s position was more cautious, prudent, realistic and do-able. But these were not disagreements about the basic and all-important principle – independence itself. Unfortunately, Mintoff – who had been caught in the fray with Borg Olivier for decades – did not rise to the occasion and accompany him on the rostrum at the Arena, saying he agreed with the achievement of Independence but once in power he would revise the Constitution and re-negotiate the treaties. Instead he and some supporters went in a corner to boo while thousands of ordinary citizens, including several Labourites, were tearfully cheering the fact that after centuries of foreign dominations Malta had become an independent and sovereign state, which is what Mintoff inherited in 1971 and used that to the hilt.

Worse and worse, he removed the country’s National Day and banned Independence as a feast, which it became even risky to commemorate, making it more partisan when it should have been national.

Joseph Muscat is being wise in coming to terms with history and recognising that as in most ex-colonies one cannot dismiss or downgrade the unique historic significance of Independence. One could see that as taking the carpet form under the PN’s feet but actually it is a vindication and possible a closure of something long drawn out.

As Anton Buttigieg once wrote, Mintoff caused needless divisiveness and bad vibes (see his manuscript reproduced in The Origins of Maltese Statehood, 1999). That was his character, as he used to say: either with us or against us. Muscat and Busuttil were not even born in 1964, this is a different epoch and hopefully a less ‘macho’ one.

Whereas Mintoff did not rise to the occasion, Muscat to his eternal credit is trying his damn best to do so, half-a-century later.

Prof. Godfrey Baldacchino

Professor of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, University of Malta

Godfrey Baldacchino: 'Can it be any other day if not Independence?'

When and if we Maltese grow up, and the generation that has lived through ‘1964, 1974, 1979 and all that’ has made way to a younger one that has no direct emotional attachment to what those dates represent, then perhaps yes, we will have one national day. By that time, the answer should be obvious.

For most independent states, national day is independence day. Can it be any other?