The premise to what follows is that Presidential speeches are relevant. There's a chance they aren't, and that they're not meant to be in the first place.

Georg Sapiano's description of the Presidency as a gilded door to a deep freeze is more than a bit intriguing. Indeed it may well be that the President is a bit like a feast panegyric orator, brought in once a year to ladle out indulgent helpings of vacant spin in a spectacular way.

Panegyrics are all about rhetorical flourish and theatre. No one takes their content seriously, and that's alright really.

But let's assume that such is not the case, and that Presidential speeches are not synonymous with a struggle to keep a straight face. That would make the Republic Day offering a rather problematic trilogy.

Consider the first point of the speech, as reported in The Times: "Although it is accepted that there be a separation between State and Church, this does not mean we should abandon our traditional Christian values and replace them with a void."

This was the first time in a week that Church and State came painfully close. (The second being the attack on Silvio Berlusconi.) Having told us that Church and State don't mix, the President went on to lecture us about Christian values. This in his official role as head of State, and within the context of a state occasion.

The attempted somersault doesn't work. The President represents the state, which includes very many citizens who are not keen on Christian values. (And please let's cut this arrogant nonsense about Christian values being universal or unquestionable - they're neither)

He would be better off - more representative, that is - addressing people as citizens rather than Christians. The latter is the bishop's job.

Some might object that, given that Catholicism is Malta's official religion, the head of State represents people who are at the same time citizens and Catholics.

Even if this is technically correct, the President ought to know better. Constitution or no constitution, it does not make sense for the head of a contemporary plural State to give speeches that alienate and marginalise whole chunks of the population.

Provided he's at all interested in contemporary ideas. Something else he said makes me wonder. He had already declared on Bondiplus that he has made it his mission to flesh out Maltese statehood with a sense of nationhood.

On Republic Day he talked of "characteristics that identify us as Maltese - our beloved language, our traditions, our culture, our beliefs, our values, our industriousness and love of family..."

This reminds me a bit of Massimo d'Azeglio's famous 'We have made Italy, now we have to make Italians'. Trouble is that d'Azeglio said this 150 years ago, at the time of the unification of Italy and during the heyday of nationalist sentiment. Which sort of makes George Abela's speech rather archaic, to put it mildly.

One might argue that Malta is a young nation-State, and that it is therefore OK to apply nineteenth-century nationalist ideas in order to 'catch up', so to speak. Patent hooey, and a bit like wearing bell-bottoms in 2009 just because you happened to miss out in 1969.

Twenty first-century nations do not 'develop' by means of exclusivist and particularistic models. First, because it would be too weary to set out on a wild goose chase for the 'characteristics that identify us as Maltese'.

'Maltese culture', 'Maltese beliefs', 'Maltese industriousness' - not to mention the 'Maltese love of the family', which sort of implies that all the rest spend their Christmas writing cards and giving presents to themselves. Oh dear.

Second, because exclusivist and particularistic models of nationhood are simply not on in the contemporary world. Not that they were ever productive, mind you, but truth is they did keep people busy building sandcastles, and dying/killing for them, for a long time. All the better if 'we' Maltese missed that bus.

Another thing President Abela said that rubbed me the wrong way had to do with 'differences'. His view is that we should concentrate on what unites us as Maltese (yes, yes) rather than on our differences. By this he presumably means that partisan politics is scuppering our nationhood.

Looks elegant on paper, but what if we took His Excellency seriously? Life in Malta would be wrist-slittingly boring without our beloved red-blue differences. What on earth would we talk and argue and get passionate about? The cut of traditional national costume perhaps? Whether we should write 'budget' or 'baġit'? Or maybe the recipe for rabbit stew and other national dishes that distinguish us as Maltese?

I'm tempted to say festa rivalry, but on that one Dr Abela has already ruled: rivalry is bad for us, and he will not be attending village feasts he deems too 'divided'. That option out, I cannot but conclude that the President is proposing to turn us into the blandest country on earth, divided over nothing and united in its boredom.

Dr Abela may be a most endearing and upright person - and I should, in all honesty and respect, wish him good health - but his ideas turn out to be tremendously uninspiring. I dread to think what would have become of Maltese politics had he won that little race among best friends in 2008.

Then again, in the event he may eventually have chosen to concentrate on differences rather than national characteristics. There is no telling to what extent circumstances make the man.

mafalzon@hotmail.com