In the first part of this e-mail exchange, Oliver Friggieri and I considered the crisis of traditional leadership. People today don’t just follow. Increasingly they set the agenda of change.The Labour Party responded to this sea-change by reinventing its leadership. Weighed down by incumbency, the Nationalist Party has yet to draw clear conclusions.

The moral agenda is still open- Oliver Friggieri

Friggieri to Vella

Dear Mario, the PL has indeed solved the leadership question with serenity and wisdom. It has elected the right person at the right time. Joseph Muscat has the power of conviction, masters diction and is excellent in communicating diverse messages to diverse audiences without ever forgetting that the electorate is one. He comes across as fresh and equally modern and rightfully rooted in tradition.

His task is not easy indeed, as, in spite of problems, people generally enjoy a high standard of living and progress is everywhere to behold. The coming election still needs a basic cause, otherwise, it will easily degenerate into a conflict between personalities. Still, change may be good and even necessary to all, even to people at the helm.

However, I think Lawrence Gonzi is the right opponent to Muscat. He faced the international crisis effectively and has proved to be incredibly calm throughout. He could have listened more but he still has much to give to the country. Both he and his opponent can help the country go through the coming encounter with dignity and mutual respect.

The way Gonzi faced the divorce dilemma sums it all: a historical compromise between a majority verdict and a personal conscience. Both demands have been (and should go on being) faithfully met.

To each his own, especially in matters of conscience. A situation typical of Malta: making both ends meet. Maltese history can be simply summed up in that.

The moral agenda is still open. The next items can be calmly dealt with accordingly. Perhaps Muscat and Gonzi, whatever the electoral result, will settle together all the moral issues on the agenda.

Vella to Friggieri

You argue that change “may be good and even necessary”. However, you add that Gonzi would make the best possible opposition leader. Many in and around the PN might disagree.

Oliver, the University plays a central role in your vision of Malta’s national development. Why?

Friggieri to Vella

Mario, together with the Catholic faith, the Maltese language and the parochial system, the University has been the factor enabling tiny Malta to survive and attain statehood. A geographical dot has become independent only a few years after infinite India and then a republic and a member of the UE. A formidable achievement.

Malta could face challenges because it had a well-established University and could provide professional people of a very high order, especially in the medical sector. Britain could not easily look down on tiny Malta without contradicting itself. The Italian cultural tradition of the island, old and continuous, could not be underestimated by the British.

Yes, the University always provided the intellectual leadership Malta needed.

Parliament is just an extension of our outstanding University. Our leaders, all of them, have been the product of our University.

May I add that Dom Mintoff himself held such a view. He temporarily discredited the University only for reasons totally alien to the real issue. Again, like Napoleon, his subliminal predecessor, he could have chosen a better way of dealing with the real situation. Both Napoleon and Mintoff did not know how to wait.

Vella to Friggieri

Oliver, you argue we owe our survival and statehood to religion, language, the parish and the University. What about people? Could we have survived economically without their hard work?

Would nationhood have been attained were it not for their will to determine their own destiny and, when necessary, to change the course of history?

Friggieri to Vella

Mario, all four social components which, in my view, enabled Malta to overcome the threat of absorption and become a fully recognised sovereign state are completely made up of the people. (1) Religion, the (2) language and the (3) parish are distinctly Maltese in all respects, so much so that they were frequently grossly underestimated by foreign rulers. Such a tiny community could not survive were it not coherent and compact.

Religion and language constituted a people’s most unifying common denominator at all levels, whereas the parish and the (4) University form the institutional, organised aspect of such national unity. The University provided the required intellectual apparatus, in terms of professional people and, eventually, of such people also becoming leaders.

The country’s traditional cultural background logically led in due course to the formation of national awareness bound to lead to sovereignty. I have dealt at length with this crucial point in a number of books, especially La cultura italiana a Malta (Florence) and Storia della letteratura maltese (Milazzo).

The more I delve into this point the more I become convinced that the two prevailing classes (the intellectuals, namely the academics, and the manual workers) did work hand in hand to turn a negligible colony into an independent republic. The most outstanding feature of this reality is that through this internal fusion Malta was able to avoid a civil war. This makes Malta a glaring example within the Commonwealth and the whole world community.

The first part of this conversation appeared on December 31 http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20121231/opinion/Hope-in-Wasteland-.451456 .

Mario Vella blogs at http://watersbroken.wordpress.com .

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.