National equilibrium

With all due respect to Mark Sammut and Kevin Aquilina, it is important not to mix up the issue of having, or not having, a national day, with changes or modifications to the Constitution. A Constitution is a basic law – in our case one drafted by a Maltese jurist, and approved in a referendum, and subsequently modified constitutionally more than once, by its own modalities, even as these were revised by representative Maltese administrations following the acquisition of Independence.

This established arrangement may and should be modified and changed further in response to new exigencies as these arise, in consultation with knowledgeable stakeholders and the electorate if and as necessary.

However, such changes need not be equated with the creation of “a new Constitution” or indeed of “a new State”, a term that has even been mentioned.

Does this imply that “a second Republic” would be tantamount to creating a new state of Malta?

My point has been simply that this country is in dire need of a historical-political equilibrium by the adoption of a consensual ethic with lasting effect, in full cognizance of past and present, government and opposition.

I have spoken of a coming to terms with our past in a post-colonial frame of mind and taking the long view.

It would not be serious or in anyone’s long-term interest to continue re-inventing the wheel. This could be futile and destabilising. For particular and sometimes peculiar reasons we have had a succession of national days or feasts or both.

For God’s sake let us not shoulder this carry-on ad infinitum.

One cannot imagine that history does not exist or that Malta has not been a product as much as it has been a protagonist of it. History teaches that life is an inter-generational continuum and nothing really changes completely. Equally, there are seminal moments in time, authenticated by their proven legitimacy.

Nor can one pretend that a Maltese government could have forged treaties, changed national days and extended international agreements unless Malta were a sovereign state.

A partial temporary possession by mutual agreement does not mean an absence of title.

I don’t think it helps guarantee our national stability and ensure a modicum of respect for our own history, ourselves, and international perceptions, if one were to go on creating new constitutions or new states or new national days, as if Malta were a country de novo, without a shared past – one which, on the whole, may even be seen to do us proud.

Hence my plea for a national equilibrium, which I hope is heeded by the powers that be, and not misconstrued.