Henry Frendo (A Plea For National Equilibrium, April 19) is right to complain about a misquotation. But I would never misquote, that goes against the rules of polite, civilised debate.
A new Constitution and a Second Republic are a natural step in our nation’s evolution
I have e-mailed him the original article I had submitted to The Times (and blind-copied to a couple of friends for their comments), showing him that the inverted comma he complained about was moved, for some reason unknown to me, by one or more sub-editors with an impish sense of humour.
However, Frendo’s justified protestation changes very little of the substance of my argument (independence, republic, sovereignty, April 13) in support of Kevin Aquilina’s proposal for a Constitution Day.
A new Constitution and a Second Republic are not an ‘artifact’ or an ‘egocentric whim’, as Frendo had argued, but, rather, a natural step in our nation’s evolution.
Aquilina is spot-on when he advocates a (i) re-founding of the Maltese State to (ii) cut the umbilical cord with Malta’s colonial history now that (iii) the Maltese are sovereign in their own State (A New Constitution, March 31).
“When the Maltese will give to themselves their own Constitution,” claims Aquilina in his contribution, “Independence Day and Republic Day will be relegated to second division insofar as national holidays are concerned.”
A home-grown Constitution, reflecting our national self, Aquilina argues, is the next step in our historical development. The current Constitution, which has a “limited purpose was intended to replicate the British Constitution in Malta with a few nuances here and there”. This gives rise to numerous issues, which he has described.
Aquilina’s parting shot: the new Constitution “should be a Constitution written by the Maltese, approved by the Maltese and regulating and inspiring the Maltese.” The Maltese dream come true!
But, unfortunately, Frendo avoids Aquilina’s arguments. Similarly, he avoids the distinction I made between de jure (1964) and de facto (1979) sovereignty (he just asks a rhetorical question referring to June 1971).
Instead, he narrates history again. Masterfully, I hasten to add. But still without proposing an overarching political interpretation. Which Aquilina does.
By “political”, I do not mean partisan. There is no, to use Frendo’s words, “blind partisanship” in this debate. Likewise, there’s no need to defend positions that were not under attack.
For instance, there has been no claim in this debate that the 1964 Independence was a ‘Nationalist Party feat’ as opposed to a national one. That might have been Dom Mintoff’s real (or perceived) idea but certainly it is not mine.
I think we all agree with Desmond Zammit Marmarà’s statement about the centrality of 1964. The point at issue, however, is that the 1964 Independence (de jure sovereignty) was the first of three steps, which, taken all together, then lead to the next quantum level: the Second Republic.
The third of those three steps is the full, de facto sovereignty acquired in 1979. Whereas Frendo accepts that “relinquishing a foreign territorial military presence may indeed be seen to symbolise” an important step, he then dismisses that step as simply “the full and final acquisition of all title to the land”.
But that mere “all title to the land” is precisely the quintessence of the Westphalian model of the State: territorial sovereignty!
That explains why the 1987 neutrality-and-foreign-military-base clause was added to article 1 of the Constitution, called The Republic And Its Territories. This was a pure application of Westphalian theory.
Indeed, the entire Mintoffian project was the building of a Westphalian System State.
A new Constitution would be the continuation of this project: a Maltese Malta ad no longer ‘Malta the Former Colony’.
This is neither partisan nor rhetorical. This is political. Finally, we have reached the moment of European Nationalism, as opposed to the Third World nationalism, which coloured the ‘national-colonial dialectic’ Frendo referred to. Knowing him as a sincerely ardent patriot, I cannot imagine how the history professor can, and why he should, disagree with this.
The next step might then be the post-nationalist step but we still have to get there, if we want to get there at all. Unless, that is, the nationalist revival in Europe does not gain the upper hand and we would (for once) have caught up with the times, albeit in a roundabout way. A Constitution as conventionally understood is composed of three dimensions: the legal-institutional, the socio-political and the philosophical.
If they were to be described by selected keywords, the legal-institutional dimension would be captured through: the State, territory, sovereignty, exclusive and ultimate authority, hierarchy, limitation of power, written Constitution.
The socio-political dimension could be expressed through: polity, people, (popular) self-government, identity, homogeneity, a single common good.
While the philosophical dimension would feature: modernity, order (aversion to disorder and irregularity), discontinuity, positive symbolism, uniformity.
Whereas Frendo’s argument is mostly socio-political, Aquilina’s is mostly legal-institutional.
The philosophical dimension has not been tackled in this particular debate, as far as I can see.
The Prime Minister has shown his statesmanship from the very start, on that important day when he announced the advent of a Second Republic.
I think one possible logical step would now be to discuss the philosophical aspect of it. How to achieve order and uniformity (in treatment) while respecting individual diversity.
This seems to me another important pillar on which the Prime Minister’s vision rests for the movement he has almost single-handedly created.
Mark Sammut has contributed to a number of books and reviews, the latest being Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987-2012.