A few hours before the Prime Minister proposed again that independence day should be our only national day, last Wednesday, I was tuned to a political programme on the Nationalist Party (PN) radio while driving my son to a football match. The amount of venom and bile spewed on this show was quite incredible.

The subject was the 45th independence anniversary. It was unadulterated tribal talk of "us and them" trench warfare: we-got-Malta's-independence-while-they-never-did-anything-good-for-this-country kind of talk.

Were Lawrence Gonzi's communication officers aware of what was being said on the party airwaves? It wasn't quite setting the right mood for the Prime Minister's proposal later in the evening. Is the PN in such disarray that those on the radio don't even care?

I had thought that fundamentalist speak was no longer part of our political vocabulary. Do listeners, even the most staunch Nationalists, believe the drivel that was being thrown at them on air?

Maybe this is the PN's way of rallying its followers at this time of unprecedented disenchantment both inside and outside the party, who knows? It seems like it is, as the speaker went on and on oblivious to how anachronistic and unreasonable he was being. I continued listening for research purposes and for my sins.

Even though 45 years have passed, some of us still have not come to terms with this bit of recent history.

I would have thought that we had overcome the prejudices of the persons involved in the independence events and that we are in a position to be objective about the significance of this day.

For those taking a detached view of things it is a celebration of a long process spanning many years - with Mikiel Anton Vassalli and Manwel Dimech being among the precursors - which resulted in political independence in 1964 and to economic independence in 1979. Is this so difficult to understand and accept?

The bone of contention was in the degree of independence aspired for in 1964: the PN accepted the independence package which included a defence agreement that basically upheld many of the rights Britain had but which then became a concession from Malta as an independent country; while the PL wanted independence on its own so that it would be able to negotiate the defence agreement from the stronger position of an independent sovereign state. This is what a Labour government eventually did in 1971.

From then on the island's economy was shifted from one dependent on military spending to one attracting foreign direct investment, in export-oriented manufacturing and service activities.

We were able, as a nation, to survive as a sovereign economy in spite of the fact that we were administered by extremes, whereby at one end top priority was given to saving rather than to investment; and at the other end the order of the day is spending much beyond our country's means, not least on irresponsible policies aimed at prolonging this Administration's terms in office.

I would have thought that we have come to the point where we are ready to look back at the events of 45 years ago objectively. Can it be denied that George Borg Olivier's negotiating skills left much to be desired? For the objective observer it was not enough for the Maltese government to accept the conditions offered by the British rather than negotiate for a better deal. And who can disagree that the PN wasn't elected in the most democratic climate back in 1962?

One only has to remember for instance that Labour had lost two elections fighting for democratic principles without giving in to the Church, which imposed mortal sin on those who voted Labour in 1962 and 1966, the elections just before and after independence. Wasn't the true meaning to independence effectively given when a mammoth restructuring of Malta's economy took place so that Malta was no longer dependent on the British military services?

Dom Mintoff had the opportunity to make amends when he became Prime Minister and renegotiated the defence agreement because he wanted more for Malta as he considered that the September 21 independence was not enough. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't it be every politicians' aim to do better and get the best for their people and their country?

It is the perception of many that the PL was against independence in 1964. Nothing could be further from the truth. The PL wanted independence with no strings attached so that Malta would be able to negotiate a financial and defence agreement as a sovereign state and thus criticised the conditional independence in a package containing a defence agreement which took as much as it gave.

Is it so hard to discuss facts as they happened? It seems so, even though there are documents to back these realities, this "us and them" mentality continues to be propagated and perpetrated .

Dr Dalli is shadow minister for the public service and government investments.