Editorial: What should monuments represent?

The erection of a statue to former prime minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici sparked controversy but also launched a much-needed debate about monuments: the why, the whether and even the where.

Mifsud Bonnici was a divisive figure in our history: there are as many who remember his selfless dedication as there are who remember his intransigence and the violence that drove Malta to chaos. Certainly, the partisan hatred that seeped into every family did major harm to the island, which took decades to reverse.

But let us forget for a moment about Mifsud Bonnici himself. During the launch of the monument competition, Heritage Malta’s CEO Noel Zammit said: “A monument’s highest value is to be able to, across centuries, evoke a nation’s collective identity and be a link between the past and present.” Food for thought.

Let us start with the why. The reality is that monuments are often erected because a lobby group is especially vocal. No one is suggesting for a moment that any names – no matter how much or how little they achieved – should be wiped out of our history.

It does not help that our national obsession with politicians is so naïve: no one is all good or all bad and even the best sometimes make poor decisions. The more monuments one party put up, the more the opposition plans for retaliation and paying tributes to its own once in power.

But is a monument always justified? There are many other ways to mark someone’s contribution to the history and culture of the country, from naming streets or buildings after them, to putting a plaque onto the house where they lived. Even Mifsud Bonnici’s niece said the former prime minister would have preferred a scholarship in his honour, supporting specialist education in industrial law, something he felt so strongly about.

If you get a monument merely because you served as a prime minister, it rather makes a mockery of, and undermines, your performance. 

There is also the issue of where. It certainly does not help that one of the most emotive squares on the island should be taken up by statues at all. Castille has become the location for partisan arm-wrestling and one-upmanship. It deserves much better.

It is sad that this country persists in celebrating politicians rather than its thinkers and talented artists. But, in reality, monuments do not even have to honour a person. They can also celebrate ideas, movements, or collective achievements.

A monument dedicated to creativity, like one celebrating the contributions of Malta’s artists, could serve as a powerful reminder of the value of art. It would shift the focus from individual legacies to the importance of creativity itself.

The underlying question is: Has the person made a significant achievement – for the whole nation – that would stand the test of time? Not every monument does, as happened, for example, in the US with colonial and confederate heroes.

Who decides who deserves a monument or other form of recognition? It says much about the island that there are so few people who could be entrusted with such an onerous responsibility. Any committee would have to bring together wisdom and insight; its members would have to be able to take an independent point of view and resist lobbying attempts from supporters and political parties.

It may be too late to reverse the decision about Mifsud Bonnici’s €170,000 life-sized statue but it is high time for the island to seriously reflect on what its monuments say about its values. As long as monuments continue to glorify politicians, Malta risks neglecting the celebration of its own true creative legacy.