Two visions of Malta

In every democracy, journalists, columnists, lawyers and politicians play an outsized role in shaping public discourse. Their views are amplified because they have regular access to media platforms, professional authority and an audience that includes policymakers.

This does not mean they are Malta. But their visibility means that their personal opinions can come across as national truths, especially when framed in sweeping language such as “we as a nation must…” or “we aspire to be…”

This rhetorical style naturally provokes reactions from those who feel excluded or misrepresented, especially older Maltese, practising Catholics, conservatives, or anyone who sees value in preserving religious and cultural traditions.

The debate over the national anthem is not just about music. The critiques of James Debono and Franco Debono of the national anthem resonate with a certain segment of Maltese society that is more secular, more cosmopolitan and more receptive to reinterpreting national symbols through a modern lens.

However, this discourse often overlooks an equally significant portion of the country, especially elderly Maltese, traditional families, practising Catholics and cultural conservatives, who view the anthem not merely as a poem from 1922 but as a sacred historical symbol.

For many, the anthem represents the struggle for identity under colonial rule, the unity of the Maltese people, continuity across generations, and the island’s Christian heritage.

These citizens do not experience the anthem as “colonial subservience”, nor do they consider its religious references inappropriate. Rather, they see it as part of the nation’s soul.

That perspective is just as valid as the secular critique – yet it is often absent from elite commentary.

When Malta Today’s journalist James Debono writes that Malta must adopt symbols that reflect “who we are and who we aspire to be”, the phrasing gives the impression that his view represents all Maltese or the majority of Maltese, that disagreement equals backwardness, that tradition is an obstacle to modernity, and that those attached to heritage are resisting progress.

A large share of the Maltese population, particularly older citizens, who constitute about a third of the entire country, do not identify with this narrative. Many are deeply connected to Catholic tradition, historical continuity, national symbols such as the anthem, and a world view shaped by collective memory rather than abstract ideological frameworks.

When journalists and public figures imply that these values are obsolete, they create a cultural disconnect rather than a national conversation.

Malta is undergoing rapid social and demographic changes like the secularisation of institutions, legalisation of abortion in certain circumstances, new migration patterns, and generational shifts in attitudes toward religion and identity.

This creates tension between two visions of Malta.

The progressive-secular vision in Malta, represented by voices like James and Franco Debono, aims for a more secular civic identity, a critical reinterpretation of history, scepticism toward religious symbolism, and an emphasis on modern cultural values.

The traditional-cultural vision held by many Maltese, especially older generations, emphasises continuity with Catholic heritage, preservation of national rituals, respect for long-standing symbols, and a belief in tradition as social glue.

Malta is a tapestry of beliefs, ages, histories and cultures- Tony Mifsud

Both visions exist within the same island but they often speak past each other. The risk is that one tries to dominate the other, instead of entering a genuine dialogue.

The two raise criticisms that have intellectual merit.

However, their arguments can sound dismissive of tradition.

They frame the anthem as inherently flawed, without engaging the emotional or cultural significance it holds for many.

They imply that Malta must “evolve” or “mature”, suggesting that those who disagree are resisting enlightenment.

They use a tone of moral certainty, which can come across as elitist or disdainful of ordinary Maltese cultural sentiment.

Most importantly, both seem to forget the simple but crucial truth: Malta is diverse. Malta is not monolithic. Malta does not belong to any journalist, lawyer or public figure.

People must respect the identity of the elderly and the faithful.

The elderly, who lived through Independence, the Republic, EU accession and every social upheaval of the last century, represent the collective memory of the nation.

They are not relics of the past; they are carriers of heritage.

They have every right to say: “We value the anthem”; “We value our religious symbols”; “We see meaning in our traditions.”

National symbols should unite, not divide. A national anthem is meant to be a shared emotional reference point, a symbol of unity, something sung together regardless of political differences, and a bridge between generations.

The path forward is dialogue, not cultural imposition.

Malta can certainly discuss: whether the anthem still speaks to today’s society, how to honour tradition while embracing change, how to manage secularisation respectfully, and how to include all Maltese in national identity.

But such discussions must be grounded in respect for different world views, recognition of the nation’s demographic reality, humility from public intellectuals, and awareness that identity cannot be imposed from above.

Malta is a tapestry of beliefs, ages, histories and cultures.

Its elderly, its faithful, its families, its modernists, its youth, all have an equal claim to the nation’s soul.

A national anthem should reflect this collective reality, not just the worldview of the intellectual class.

The debate should reflect what all Maltese hold dear.

[attach id="1463359" size="small" align="left" type="image"[/attach]

Tony Mifsud studied politics and social affairs in Oxford.