There is no longer any point in continuing with the arguments about the antics of the Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Ilsien Malti. It is not the case of ‘them’ versus ‘us’, nor of ‘the majority sets the agenda’ either.
Education Minister Evarist Bartolo responsibly opened up new approaches but the council responded openly with ‘Ego mihimet sum semper optimus’ (‘I myself am the greatest’) attitude; negative bordering on the psychopathological.
From our Maltese forebears’ wisdom, ‘Traqqax il-pannu bil-qara’ aħmar’ (‘You don’t mend new material with rags’) is apt here.
It is now clear that unless the whole council set-up is overhauled from its foundations, this body cannot function satisfactorily. Without drastic remedial measures, tensions will continue to foment, increasing the level of harm already inflicted upon all concerned. The council has lost its credibility and trust on a major scale.
When the present rift initially emerged, there was talk of “forming an alternate body to counteract the oppressive antics”. Others openly spoke of “civil disobedience”. I mention these two serious laments, which remain dormant, not as some kind of threat but as additional indications of the depth of disillusionment and ire felt at the highest echelons of Malta’s intelligentsia, both locally and abroad.
The council’s current standing is a closed shop based on narcissism, egotism, arrogance, intransigence and obstinacy. Such an attitude renders it dysfunctional. The other side, with which I identify, remains oceans apart. This latter group comprises a considerable number of well-meaning dissidents, all of whom are just as knowledgeable language scholars as those of the council.
This undesirable stalemate is all due to the council’s grandiose fantasies, through which it has successfully sewn confusion, frustration, anger, disappointment and disillusion. We of the alternative views remain resolute in our pleas for a rational discourse.
I could easily delve into problems of Maltese linguistics as others before me have done; but Maltese linguistics is not the principal underlying problem. Linguistics, as well as the council’s behaviour, are merely symptomatic of a far more complex and profound national problem. The linguistics aspect, which seems to have overwhelmingly preoccupied the debate, can be resolved satisfactorily on a national scale only after we admit to the lingering underlying tensions from our nation’s historicity.
It is my conviction that this complex language problem has its deep seated origins of anthropological, social, psychological, historical, political and religious natures from way back.
Happenings within the council are a reflection and an overt expression of these national experiences, progressively ingrained in the nation’s psyche over bygone centuries, by divisive and uncaring foreign powers.