National Day of silly fun

So, will the never-ending-story of the silliness about our National Day really go on forever and ever? Well, forever is a long, long time. But only those who believe in miracles should hold their breath. Just cause for my cynicism was provided by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi last Wednesday in his Granaries speech to the remaining faithful at a meeting held as part of the Nationalist Party activities in the run-up to Independence Day, which falls tomorrow.

That is not to say that Gonzi was brusque or imposing. He spoke in the tone and manner which befits a Prime Minister who seems willing to rise for a moment above the relentless heat of political battle. He said he believed the Maltese people were capable of choosing one National Day. He then reiterated the choice he is tied by - Independence Day, "which marks the birth of the country".

Aside from prejudging the issue, that was putting it too grandly. The country was born thousands of years ago when the early wanderers of the Mediterranean fell upon our bare rock and did not find any locals to hiss at them as intrusive and undesirable immigrants. Independence Day marks the formal birth of Malta as a State. But, sadly, that did not happen through a marriage which was applauded by one and all.

The Labour opposition of the day branded Independence Day as the mark of a sell-out. Its leaders and followers felt that the treaties which the colonial masters chained to the event were demeaning and vitiated the true essence of independence. That was mostly a reference to the fact that parts of Malta retained the garb of a fortress for the United Kingdom.

By that criterion, of course, Cyprus would not be independent to this very day, and purists would say that, of course, it is not. Labour held that real independence was achieved - won, as in combat, is the preferred word - on March 31, 1979, when the last British warship sailed away from our historic Grand Harbour after Malta had spent eight more years 'yoked' to Britain under the agreement of restricted-facilities-for-cash negotiated with much thunder by Dom Mintoff.

Really, it is all a matter of subjective viewing of two relative events. On an objective appraisal, Independence Day has the edge on Freedom Day since without the first, there could not be the second - Mintoff would not have been able to negotiate with the British authorities the way he did, with the Italians joining in for proper measure to tip the scales in favour of his position when deadlock was reached.

But only idealists expect objectivity in politics. When it came to setting our National Day - I remember the occasion well as a Labour MP in opposition at the time - we ended up writing a farce. An early compromise suggested was that both days should be made National Days.

Then two more days were brought in and the silliness expanded. We all agreed about them as well, knowing the meaning of National Day as a day of unity had been diluted to less than a grasshopper knee's depth of water.

Then, for good measure, a Labour MP flippantly proposed yet another day also to be proclaimed as a National Day. And, in for an idiocy, in for some more, that was also agreed upon. We have now been living the farce for so many years that we no longer laugh about it. Yet some do feel it is too much of a tragicomedy.

From time to time someone comes up with the proposal to have one National Day. Joseph Muscat proposed that early into his tenure as Labour leader. Some interest was shown, but it did not last. Gonzi came back to the issue, but in a manner which effectively kills fresh debate, since he touted Independence Day, rather than leaving the matter open.

He did so, he said, "not with a sense of imposition but with humility because I have respect for every national day of our country, all being important chapters in our history". But, he added, "everything" was born from independence. And "every country recognises that their independence marked the birth of their nation".

While I do not feel that to say "everything" was born from independence is the right approach, I would not lose sleep if Independence Day did become the proper National Day. But it will not happen. Muscat is making visible and less visible changes. He is ready to discuss one National Day. Yet I doubt he will ditch opposition to Independence Day being it.

My own view remains that it ought not be difficult to agree on September 8 as our proper National Day, leaving the other days as public holidays.

September 8 is a day which symbolises our escape from modern slavery at the hands of the Nazis and the Fascists of World War II. It is a day that can unite us all.

Should obstinacy continue to rule against that, I have another proposal - let us not have any National Day. At least thereby we'll stop presenting ourselves to ourselves and to anybody else who bothers to notice us as a figure of fun sporting the contradiction of multiple 'National' days.