THE BIG HYPOCRISY: MALTA’S PARTIES AND THE AfD
By Joe Vella
Alternative for Germany, or AfD, emerged as a political force critical of the European Union’s direction. Its core beliefs centre on national sovereignty. The party argues that Germany must prioritise its own citizens. Mass immigration, it claims, threatens social cohesion and cultural identity.
AfD opposes uncontrolled inflows of migrants such as the Moroccans who invaded Spain this week. It calls for strict border controls and the deportation of failed asylum seekers. The party views multiculturalism with suspicion. It maintains that Islam is not compatible with German values in its more political forms. Traditional family structures receive strong support. Gender ideology and rapid social change face resistance.
On Europe, AfD remains Eurosceptic. It wants powers returned to national parliaments. The euro currency draws particular criticism. Economic policy favours free markets, yet with welfare protections aimed at native citizens. Climate policies that impose heavy costs on industry and households meet scepticism. Direct democracy features as a recurring demand.
These positions rest on a defence of national identity, controlled borders and democratic accountability within the nation-state.
Ten years ago, our two dominant parties in Malta voiced related concerns. Both operated in a small island state facing persistent irregular migration by sea.
In the mid-2010s both parties insisted that Malta’s capacity had limits. They pressed for stronger external borders. Nationalist leaders and Labour ministers alike argued that uncontrolled arrivals strained housing, welfare and public order. Statements from that period stressed the need to protect Maltese identity and social fabric.
Sovereignty language appeared regularly. Both parties demanded respect for national decision-making on migration and security. Cultural continuity mattered. Traditional social values retained broad support across the political spectrum. Rapid demographic change was treated with caution rather than celebration.
Over the past decade, however, the positions of Malta’s two principal parties have evolved. AfD continues to regard mass immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, as a serious threat to Germany’s cultural identity and national cohesion. By contrast, both the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party have generally adopted a more accommodating approach towards immigration and Islam. Maltese gaysproudly raise the Palestinian flag while the Palestinians would raise them to the rooftops in Gaza. May God have mercy in the absence of parachutes.
AfD rejects multiculturalism, arguing that it weakens national identity and that political Islam is incompatible with Western values. Critics contend that Malta’s major parties have increasingly embraced multiculturalism, sometimes at the expense of the Maltese language retaining its central role in the nation’s classrooms.
There are, of course, important geographical differences. Germany must police extensive land borders, whereas Malta is a small, isolated island. Although Malta deports more people per capita than Germany, the absolute numbers are far smaller and therefore attract much less international attention. This reflects a wider reality of small-state politics: measures that appear significant in proportional terms often seem far less dramatic when compared with the much larger figures recorded by Europe’s largest countries. This is why national conservatism espoused in this blog is considered “extreme” in Germany and in Malta’s liberal press. AfD’s philosophy was once Malta’s practical necessity. Now Malta pretends otherwise. Ten years ago, Malta agreed with AfD. Today, in a state of convenient amnesia, it condemns it.