The Malta Independent on Sunday
THE STATE AND THE GOVERNMENT: openings and closings
The concept of the State is different to that of the Government. The Government is a small part, yet the most significant faction, of the State. A State incorporates many other elements besides Government. State is defined as the structure which unites all the components which constitute a Nation and all the integral structures which consolidate it with the guiding procedures for the creation of relationships between institutions and between particular individuals with diverse social groups.
A Government in fact is a modest element but the most determined to unite all aspects of society to determine the historical development of the State.
Another vital difference between State and government is that State is a concept which transcends time, meaning that it has no temporal limitation as a particular government does. It may be said that the State is eternal, unless it is eradicated from the geopolitical map as has happened to many States throughout the history of humanity.
Also, a State represents a multiplicity of global and classist interests under the constitutional umbrella of a nation. On the contrary, government represents the particular interests of a specific mode of management.
Many are the expressive aspects which show this difference. For example, there is the infamous, almost folkloristic, fight over the Malta’s National Day. A nation’s National Day is a beacon of maturity in the evolution of a State. The more that particular governments battle over the selection of the National Day, the more obvious it becomes that we have not yet developed on the historical and advanced level of a State.
Obviously, the maturity into a State is not a linear development. Rather, there could be societies which develop their own State and then fall into crisis which results into the undoing of this status. The trial of a State is based on how State ingredients (in other words, government, political parties, the church, diverse social groups, activist groups, personal- ities, individuals and all those who form part of society and class interests) formally act towards the creation of an identity of a nation as a State.
This is seen in how the government, amongst others, reacts towards the vital components of a State as are national feasts, the defending of identity, the propagation of the country’s history, education towards the recognition of the State, the defence of national interests before international fora, and a multitude of other aspects. All these form the identity and the quality of a State. A government may exist without a State as a particular society would not have developed enough to become a State.
One of the most revealing moments of State presence which determines the quality and strength of the State is the material presence of heads of State and its components during State events. And one of the events pertaining to all States and nations which expresses the maturity of a country is the official opening of the National Theatre, which in our country is the Manoel Theatre, a jewel which displays the vigour of Malta’s past, yet also the weakness of its present. opening of a cultural and artistic season, and because of its status as National Theatre, this date is of profound importance in the definition of a State.
However, the Maltese State decided to absent itself from the official opening of this theatre’s season. This gave rise to a paradox: if the State was absent then this in fact means that there is no State, and if there is no State then the President’s box must be empty? One literally remains in emptiness and darkness.
One may have commitments and may be replaced by others, and a hundred situations may arise, yet the concept of a State transcends all of these particularities. The State, if it is a State and wants to be recognized as one, must be present. It is an obligation of the State to be phenomenally present with all its power and strength, with all its components, and not as a feeble State.
And for a State to express itself as a State, its components must be physically present: the government, the opposition, the parliament, the parties, the church, cultural organizations, government and non-governmental organizations. A lack of these components signifies a lack of knowledge on the definition of a State. As far as I can see, and it really pains me to say so, the rightist politics of the Nationalist Party over these past 30 years have shown to be more mature than those of the Labour Party. Even during the opening of the last National Theatre season, former Presidents of Malta were present, amongst them, and with a certain heroism in my opinion, was Eddie Fenech Adami, and this was on the eve of the life and death problems which the Fenech Adami family were passing through at those precise moments (and here I must send my sincere regards to Beppe for his courage throughout his personal battle).
Where were the other Presidents? Where were the members of the government, of the Labour Party? I also saw Francis Zammit Dimech. Is it possible that the Labour Government doesn’t recognize the radical importance of its presence at such State events which in fact define our country as a State and a nation. And if they do not understand this, then what are they doing in power?
The paradox is that it was the Labour Party which managed to unite all the elements which make us both a State and a nation. Its fight resulted in victory for the Maltese language, the use of Maltese in schools, law courts and education. It was the Labour Government which provoked a cultural and artistic rampage during the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s.
Poets and master writers were all in some way or another or in one form or another linked to the Labour Party, or at least sympathized with its politics.
The School of Music, School of Art, Art Education in Schools, the Museum of Art, the Museum of Contemporary Arts (1980s), the nationalization of broadcasting, the opening and expansion of international scholarships besides those to the United Kingdom, the politics of cultural expansion by means of Embassies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and many, many others… were all initiatives of Labour Governments. These transform a society into a State and a nation.
So why must the government be absent from events which sustain all of these momentous efforts? Why must the right be allowed to exploit all of the achievements created by the leftist and progressive movement? It is quite intentional to forget that Renzo Piano was in fact invited by the Labour Governement, as was the early aborted project by Le Corbusier in the 50s. We seem to have the most excellent talent to abort the most beautiful and radical reforms ever. Many are the international initiatives and national reforms that due to a ridiculous policy become self-annihilating to the detriment of our development as a modern State: the Common Heritage of Mankind international law revolution of the 60s/early 70s; the Mediterranean-Helsinki Declaration; a new concept of active Neutrality, Renzo Piano, Le Cor- busier, an advanced social State, Palestine recognition and the recognition of China in the 1970s.... and many others. Instead of integrating all within one national policy we love to disintegrate all this into separate opposing parts. What a pity. What a pity.
Since today economic interests are leading all large parties, it is obvious that the concept of right and left is being blurred. And this is what society wants. Thus it is our task to ensure that our society does not obscure this important difference.
There are differences which will remain. The party which has a progressive and leftist history and genetics must continue to assert its presence in all spaces and events. Around the whole world art and culture pertains to the left.
In fact I have many personal stories of comical occasions when I encountered reactionary and clerical Maltese friends of mine who in Italy and France posed as militant leftists, even anarchists, and when in Malta they supported the Interdict. Only in Malta is the left unperturbed by cultural and artistic developments. And this is a great mistake, because the class struggle, hidden or explicit, blurred or in focus, is occurring there. The more the left departs from this sphere, the more the right strengthens and anchors destructive roots. And one cannot forget that art and culture signify the intellectuality of man! Shall we allow the mode of thought and the development of thought to remain in the hands of the conservatives?