The year of national celebrations is now over, including the special anniversaries of achieving independence, be­coming a republic and joining the European Union. It is a pity that Malta’s first-ever Parliament building was not yet ready to be inaugurated as part of the events. The latest announcement is that it will be completed next month.

Some international architectural ma­ga­zines have recently prais­ed the project, although differing opinions and tastes still smoulder here in Malta as they un­doubtedly always will.

When Westminster Palace in London was rebuilt to house the British parliament in the 1830s, the UK Times had called for “a noble parliamentary edifice worthy of a great nation”. A heated debate about the appropriate architectural style resulted in the choice of a neo-Gothic style as a reflection of ‘Englishness’.

When the architect Norman Foster designed the glass dome on the roof of the German Parliament building, the Reichstag in Berlin, an architectural controversy also raged there. Today it is widely recognised as a landmark. People can walk around the dome and look down on the Parliament chamber below, symbolising the power of citizens over Parliament.

Besides the designs, in both cases, the importance of the location, symbolism and status of the nation’s parliament building was recognised. Malta’s Parliament deserves no less.

At times, pride in our nation’s institutions seems to be lacking in this country. When the idea of a purpose-built Parliament building was first proposed, some people lashed out as though parliament was a dirty word.

Before the election, Joseph Muscat had even made the oddly snide promise that if he became prime minister, he would personally invite Lawrence Gonzi to inaugurate Malta’s new Parliament building, as though this was a dreaded event that he would use to get at his opponent as it was his idea in the first place.

It would be unusual for an ex- prime minister to preside over the inauguration of a new parliament building, but we have yet to see whether the pro­mis­ed invitation will materia­lise.

Differing opinions and tastes still smoulder

Opening Malta’s first-ever Parliament building, after 50 years of independence, is a moment of national pride that deserves some reflection on our country’s history. Our forefathers battled long and hard to have a parliament at all, and they would probably have rejoiced at a purpose-built, presti­gious building as its seat.

The sittings of the council of government and Parliament during Malta’s colonial history were held in the Council Chamber at the Presidential Palace, known as the ‘Chamber of Tapestries’ after the beautiful Gobelins tapestries which hang on its walls. In 1976, the Parliament moved into a larger space at the Palace, the former Armoury, where it still is today.

When Parliament eventually moves out of its current chamber to the new building, most of the Palace will be turned into one of Malta’s major museums. It has been almost taken for granted by many people that the items that were in the former Armoury, which were removed to the former stables on the ground floor, should then return to their original hall upstairs.

The Armoury was set up by the Knights of St John in the early 17th century, storing weapons and armour in racks, cupboards and rows, and in a relatively damp-free environment. It was once a famous and much-admired collection of weapons, although it was depleted from 1798 onwards and the surviving items are only a fraction of what there was. If these are returned to the former Armoury, this would restore a rare example of an original sala d’armi.

So far, so good. Yet the Armoury of the Knights was not replaced by something trivial, but by the first new Parliament chamber set up by an independent Maltese state. Many momentous and historic parliamentary debates have been held on those seats, including that on membership of the European Union, or the tense debates of the 1980s.

The historic importance of this chamber and its relatively intact interior, cannot be denied. It is also part of the nation’s heritage – specifically of the young Maltese state, as opposed to the foreign rule of the Knights of St John.

Debates on what to preserve and what to discard are staple fare in the heritage sector. At St James Cavalier, for example, the decision was to highlight the different phases of the building’s history and let them co-exist.

Will future generations agree with a decision to remove what will ultimately have been Malta’s Parliament chamber for over 40 years as a newly independent country? Will they concur with the idea that viewing the remnants of the armour and weapons of the Knights in their original military storehouse is preferable?

It is difficult to be sure about how to assign value to things. It is also much easier to overlook the importance of things that are relatively recent and taken for granted, rather than those that have survived for a longer period. And it is not even desirable, let alone possible, to preserve everything. In many cases, decisions are subjective and judged differently with the passage of time.

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.