Under British rule the Maltese nation was governed by myriad colonial constitutions, most of which were repressive of our nationhood, while a few allowed us to start experimenting with the workings of democracy through a modicum of self-government, even if sovereignty over the Maltese Islands rested firmly in the hands of what was then the world’s greatest imperial superpower.

It was, of course, at independence that the present Constitution managed to wed sovereignty with democracy.

With the birth of our Constitution 50 years ago, there was the birth of the democratic institutions which ensure the political sovereignty of the people and above all the Rule of Law.

At midnight on September 21, 1964, the Constitution of independent Malta breathed life into the Parliament of Malta, the government of Malta and to a judiciary, which was to safeguard our democratic liberties by ensuring that the Constitution of Malta was in effect truly the Supreme law of the Maltese Islands.

Above all, our new Constitution had the overriding ambition to put the protection of the fundamental human rights of each and every human person as the hallmark of the newly born State.

The Constitution entrusted the essential role to the Constitutional Court as Malta’s true guardian of both the Constitution and of our liberties.

The march of increased protections of our fundamental human rights did not stop at the human rights provisions of the Constitution. Soon after independence, Malta became a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory of its Convention of Human Rights.

In turn, Malta became a signatory to the right of individual petition, allowing any person to directly apply to the European Court of Strasbourg against the State for human rights breaches. This was complemented by the incorporation of the European Convention’s provisions on human rights in our law, allowing their protection within Malta’s constitutional jurisdiction before final resort to the European Court of Strasbourg. Last but not least is the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Yet, a Constitution ultimately succeeds or fails depending on its capability of becoming the vehicle of national consensus on matters which divide the country.

To this extent, our Constitution was challenged from its very own birth, which was far from smooth. The run-up to independence was marked by inherent distrust between our political parties over such constitutional fundamentals such as whether Malta was to be a monarchy or a republic. The distrust was not removed by the calling of a referendum on the provisions of the new Constitution. In fact, it ended up by deepening the political divide.

Our independence therefore is our Constitution and our Constitution is our democracy which is the people of Malta and Gozo

The mutual distrust continued all through the Constitution’s first decade and culminated in the deep constitutional crisis of December 1974 when the Constitution’s supremacy was in effect suspended for 48 hours until a vital new consensus was reached around the wide-ranging constitutional amendments introducing the Republic of Malta.

There were to be other moments of constitutional crisis. Arguably, the most serious being the constitutional crisis which followed the ‘perverse result’ of the 1981 elections, in which the party that had won the absolute majority of the electorate ended up in a minority in the House of Representatives.

Once more, however, the belief in having a Constitution in which the entire Maltese nation could identify its democratic aspirations led to constitutional consensus. The convulsed sitting of the House which approved the so-called ‘majority’ electoral amendments – which remains in our collective memory – ensured that never again would the absolute majority of the electorate be denied the right to govern by the absolute majority of seats in Parliament.

Constitutional consensus on electoral reform has meant that Malta was and remains one of the very few former colonies which has enjoyed an unbroken string of 11 legislatures since independence and more significantly of the five occasions in which the ruling party bowed its head to the electorate’s will for change without any problem of democratic continuity.

It was through another fundamental constitutional reform that Malta became a ‘neutral State’. Malta’s model of neutrality was constitutionally made to measure to ensure that Malta remains an actor and promoter of peace within the international scene and more particularly within the European and Mediterranean reality.

Our Constitution therefore is the undoubted prime force in defining the national identity of the Maltese nation. It upholds the central value of ‘work’ when the Constitution in its very first article defines Malta as a “democratic republic founded on work and the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual”.

To those who dedicate attention to the word of the Constitution, there is a treasure trove of national values such as the promotion of co-operatives, the protection of equal rights of men and women, the safeguarding of the minimum age for paid work and the labour of minors, that every citizen is to be provided with reasonable social assistance and insurance.

Even artisan trades are recognised by the Constitution as is “the participation of Maltese citizens who live abroad in the political, social, economic and cultural life of Malta”. Not to mention such fundamentals as our language, national anthem and religion.

Our independence therefore is our Constitution and our Constitution is our democracy which is the people of Malta and Gozo.

Lino Spiteri’s column is not appearing this week.

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.