 |
|
|
|
opinion
The Nation vs 21 Century feudalism
Frans
Sammut rebuts the jaundiced ideas about what CNi stands for, and
explains the need for the lobby's contribution at this juncture
in Maltese history
In his article titled The New Nationalism, (MaltaToday April 8)
James Debono made a number of assertions verging on the defamatory.
What prevents them from being libellous is the obvious simplification
inspiring them. Mr Debono evidently does not know what he is talking
about.
Had it been otherwise, I would be the first to insist with CNi on
suing the young man for libel. Not least because being, even visually,
associated with swine like Adolf Hitler and crazies like Mussolini
and Milosevic guarantees a win at the law courts for the aggrieved.
Mentioning these despicable characters brings us to the fundamental
purpose for which the Campaign for National Independence was set
up, namely to steer Malta away from the clutches of devious politicians
who might be harbouring the same objectives of the mentioned company
without having the gumption to admit them. Unfortunately, EU leaders
of this mould are already stalking the European stage. The corruption
that usually goes hand in hand with absolute power has already tarnished
their names. The signs are there for all who want to see them.
James Debono fails to see them. He is more intent on bringing up
old hat revelations regarding myths on which some people thrived.
Apart from the fact that most nations do no better than that in
their own context (Charlemagne himself still constitutes a bone
of contention between the French and the Germans because these have
not yet solved the riddles obfuscating their historical versions
of the early middle ages), Professor Wettinger's severe chastisement
of what less knowledgeable people had been embracing since Abela's
times has been accepted for at least two decades.
It was my generation - probably before James Debono was even born
- that joined in Wettinger's debunking of gross distortions in Malta's
history. We certainly do not need lectures from these up-and-coming
pseudo-intellectuals any more than we need lessons in democracy
from the likes of Joe (Xarabank) Azzopardi.
I will go one further. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the opinion
that if the history of the Maltese Islands goes back 5,000 years
or so (maybe much more), the history of the Maltese people and nation
does not go back any further than 200 year at most. Prior to the
French Revolution there hardly existed the notion of "nation"
in most countries let alone in little, remote, Malta. The Knights,
too, held back from distinguishing among themselves on the basis
of "national" differences, preferring to use "langues"
to denote the difference.
In his rambling article Mr Debono mentions Mikiel Anton Vassalli.
He failed to bring up the point that Vassalli was among the very
first Malta, who, fired by the democratic principles of the French
Revolution, dared speak of the concept of looking at the Maltese
people as a nation with its own tongue, folklore and national rights.
(I am not basing this on the fact that he addressed his books to
the ‘nazione' Maltese because at the time, "nation"
could mean simply "people"; this simplistic error is unfortunately
paraded by the half-educated who, as in other cases, make me prefer
communicating with the totally uneducated).
I regret having to put Mr Debono in the same basket as the half-educated,
but, with the research track record he flaunts, he gives me no reason
to do otherwise. He cannot, for instance, see the difference between
patriotism, pure and simple, and nationalism which leads to fascism,
imperialism and the rest of the ‘isms' anthropologists throw
about, sometimes in haphazard fashion. If we take the Italian model,
we must consider the great difference lying between the unification
phase, when Italian patriots led by Garibaldi, Cavour and the rest,
struggled to unify the patria, and D'Annuzio's irredendist exercise
in escorting Flume back to the Italian fold and the mad ideas which
drove Mussolini to turn this patriotism into what he termed "fascism"
with a view to bringing back the Roman Empire!
Where do CNi activities come into all this? Is CNi propagating the
idea that the Maltese should attack and annex some other island
in the Mediterranean with the ultimate purpose of setting up a "greater
Malta" on the lines of Milosevic's programme of creating a
"greater Serbia"? Is Mr Debono implying that we CNi members
are junkies revelling in some pipe dream, the parameters of which
are perhaps better known to himself?
One other question. Does Mr Debono think Che Guevara was following
a Fascist programme when he led South Americans against their overlords?
Does he consider Namer a Fascist when be pursued his patriotic objectives
in fighting Western hegemony? Can he not perceive the not-so-complex
difference between patriots and people imbued with expansionist
concepts spawned by overriding nationalistic fervour and evil passions?
If Mr Debono is unable to make these distinctions it is useless
arguing with him.
What remains is to demonstrate, as amply as is possible within the
limitations of a newspaper page, how silly people can get regardless
of the academic qualifications they flaunt for reasons that may
not be entirely academic.
Mr Debono should learn to distinguish between the history of former
European imperial powers and that of their former colonies. Earlier
on, I mentioned Gamal Abdul Nasser, rightly known as the father
of modern Egypt. Nasser was ideologically socialist, but since he
was operating within the framework of the Arab world which, in his
days, was still struggling to recover from a terrible colonial hangover,
he had to carry out a programme which, in European countries, had
been performed by the middle and lower-middle classes. So Nasser
was a socialist and a nationalist at the same time. Did any self-respecting
academic dare equate that combination with fascism or Nazism simply
because Herr Hitler had called his dustbin party "National
Socialist"?
Here in Malta, Mintoff had found himself very much in the same situation.
He led a Socialist party which still had to fight the "battles
of yesteryear" simply because those battles had not been fought
by the middle classes whose soul had been hijacked by a "Nationalist
Party" which was "nationalist" for Italy, not for
Malta.
There is still another difference. This lies between Mintoff's heyday
and the current situation. Whereas Mintoff had to rely on his party
alone, those who are now struggling to save the Maltese people's
sovereignty and independence are finding massive support from the
working class and the entrepreneurs, not to mention intellectuals
from both sides of the traditional political divide. This support
is widening day by day.
The support of these intellectuals is being bolstered by kindred
ideas reaching us from prominent intellectuals like Professor Jean
Paul Bled of the Sorbonne, who last Tuesday spoke at the Phoenicia
and likened the EU to "a mad train gathering momentum towards
the creation of a European super-state". Professor Bled did
not mince his words. He said "People inside the EU are not
free and it is becoming more and more anti-democratic".
Professor Bled spelt out his educated opinion that Europe is developing
into a two-tier set-up: a 21-century feudal system with two classes,
the elite or what he called the mandarins and the rest, a lower
sort of class without any tools or means to secure the same rights
as their overlords. Is this what Mr Debono and all those who wield
wild notions like "Socrates", "Comenius" and
what-not as if they were war-whoops mindlessly used to confuse the
enemy, really want?
Professor Bled insisted there can be no democracy without a nation.
This is what CNi fervently believes too.
CNi stands for democracy, as well as for national sovereignty and
independence. One cannot survive without the others.
•
Frans Sammut, educationalist, francophile and writer is an active
member of the Campaign for National Independence.
From 1996 to 1998 he served in the Prime Minister's office, as an
adviser
|
|
|
