One expects two currents to take centre-stage during celebrations – if anything intellectual is being planned at all, that is.

One expects Nationalists, or sympathisers, to remind one and all that thanks to the 1964 constitution, Malta finally became the master of her own destiny, a long journey that ultimately culminated, 40 years down the line, in EU membership.

One expects Labourites, or sympathisers, to convey (for the umpteenth time) Dom Mintoff’s slogan: “Farcical independence.” Mintoff echoed Nigeria’s dissatisfaction with its 1960 constitution (one of the sources of inspiration for our own 1964 constitution).

The Nigerians had held that since the British monarch remained the sovereign of the newly independent Nigerian State, then they were being granted only dominion status, not fully fledged independence. More or less, Mintoff’s mantra.

If we do get these lucubrations or their lugubrious equivalent in speech form, I for one will be disappointed. They would be but rehashes of tired partisan positions which have now reached unbearable levels of tediousness.

Apart from the fact that British intellectuals have been arguing that for all ends and purposes Britain is in reality a republican modern state, and the feudal vestiges – king, crown, allegiance – are but a psychological device to get the people to obey the laws.

A theory of the State

That’s what one would expect in 2024 in Malta.

French history professor Alain Blondy has stated that the concept of “State” is alien to the Maltese. One could easily counter-argue that the concept of “State” is nebulous for the British and we got our constitution from them.

British and other common-law scholars constantly insist that the British theory of the State is not only poorly articulated but also foggy.

In the landmark case M vs Home Office, the English Court of Appeal held that the crown is a legal entity with full powers in its own right. This happened as recently as 1992! The concept arose because in the Westminster-style political system there is no continental-style notion of a state, nor an entrenched constitution.

Sixty years on, it’s high time we grew out of the shadow of the former colonising power

The umbilical cord with Britain has been cut (sort of) for 60 years now. In the meantime, we’ve joined the EU, and Brexit has taken place. The distance between us and what never really was our “parent country” but behaved as if it were, has grown wider.

Our partners for the foreseeable future are continental Europeans, who have distinctly clear ideas on what the State is.

Perhaps for the 60th independence anniversary, we should discuss what our own theory of the State is.

Not just by focusing on constitutional law and political theory, and regurgitating what was passed down to us by the colonial masters.

But also by trying to break new ground, proposing a novel, home-grown understanding of the role of the president of the republic, that pivotal creation of the 1974 constitutional revolution.

Is the president a continuation of the monarch and/or the crown with all the implications of these common-law terms? Or is the president an indigenous (or autochthonous) creation?

What about the prime minister – is this office a continuation of the governor-general, or even of the grand master?

And what about parliament and its relationship with the constitution – two problematic concepts for common-law constitutionalists which we have (unwittingly?) inherited?

And the famous “institutions”?

Is independence within the Commonwealth advantageous only to the central country of the organisation heir to the British Empire? Should Malta re-evaluate her role and position in the post-colonial world? What are the implications of her relatively young membership of the now UK-less EU?

For many people, abstraction and theorisation are a waste of time. I find this both benighted and counterproductive.

The more I read and the more I meet intellectuals abroad, the more I realise that our aversion towards these two mental exercises is provincial, if not even backwater.

Sixty years on, it’s high time we grew out of the shadow of the former colonising power and founded our own identity. Geography and culture have always pointed toward the continent, and, in legal terms, the Roman civil-law world.

I hope in 2024 we try to explore continental notions of State. Fogginess might clearly serve the British well, but us less so.

Mark Sammut Sassi writes political commentaries.