50 sena pajjiż Indipendenti

Illum infakkru l-50 anniversarju tal-Indipendenza ta’ Malta. Jiġifieri meta Malta fl-1964 bdiet tmexxi lilha innifisha.

Kont hemm f’nofs il-lejl, tifel ta’ 8 snin, nara l-bandiera Maltija tiela’ f’postha flok dik Inġliża. Kienet indipendenza politika immedjata għax pajjiżna beda jieħu d-deċiżjonijiet hu minn dak il-ħin. Kemm id-deċiżjonijiet tajbin kif ukoll oħrajn ħżiena. Issa ma kienx baqa’ iktar f’min inwaħħlu. Daqshekk tort (jew mertu) tar-Reġina.

Ekonomikament konna għadna fuq sieq waħda. Malta kienet għadha dipendenti mid-dħul assoċjat mal-bażi militari.

Wieħed mill-argumenti ewlenin fid-dibattitu politiku dwar l-Indipendenza fis-snin sittin kien dwar jekk kienx essenzjali li l-ewwel il-pajjiż ikun b’saħħtu ekonomikament u dan qabel ma jieħu rajh f’idejh. George Borg Olivier dejjem sostna li ħadd ħlief il-Maltin nfushom m’għandhom l-interess li l-pajjiż jiżviluppa ekonomija b’saħħitha. Għaldaqstant għalih kienet meħtieġa l-indipendenza politika immedjata għax din kien iqiesha bħala ċ-ċavetta, jew l-għodda l-iktar essenzjali, għall-iżvilupp ekonomiku. Pajjiż kolonja, jmexxuh minn imnieħru fl-interess ta’ pajjiż ieħor.

Id-differenza bejn il-Partit Nazzjonalista w il-Partit Laburista ma kienitx l-Indipendenza imma l-Kostituzzjoni.  Kemm George Borg Olivier kif ukoll Dom Mintoff kienu jaqblu li Malta kellha tkun Indipendenti. Il-partiti l-oħra (ta’ Herbert Ganado, Mable Strickland u Toni Pellegrini) min-naħa l-oħra riedu t-tisħiħ ekonomiku qabel l-Indipendenza.

Huwa normali ħafna li f’pajjiż li qed jaħdem biex ikun indipendenti jkun hemm divergenza fil-ħsieb dwar il-prijoritajiet u dwar l-aħjar mod kif naġixxu. L-argumenti ekonomiċi biex tkun posposta l-Indipendenza ta’ Malta ma ħadmux, b’differenza ta’ dak li ġara fl-Iskozja l-ġimgħa l-oħra! Imma d-deċiżjonijiet ittieħdu bla ġlied u b’mod demokratiku. Kemm fejn naqblu, kif ukoll fejn ma naqblux.

F’Malta kienu diversi l-issues kostituzzjonali ta’ konflitt, ewlenin fosthom is-separazzjoni bejn l-Istat u l-Knisja u ż-żwieġ ċivili. Mintoff migdum mill-konflitt mal-Knisja ried salvagwardji kostituzzjonali kontra l-indħil tal-Knisja fejn ma kelliex tindaħal.

 

George Borg Oliver kien jieħu l-affarijiet bil-mod, kien kalm u diplomatiku. Mintoff kien nervuż, suspettuż, mgħaġġel u jmexxi l-quddiem politika ta’ konfront kontinwu. Żewġ metodi ta’ ħidma li t-tnejn nisslu bosta diffikultajiet. Il-ħidma bil-mod ittelfek il-paċenzja għax iddum ma tara r-riżultati. Il-ħidma mgħaġġla iżżejjed min-naħa l-oħra tnissel problemi ta’ żbalji kultant goffi kif ukoll inġustuzzji ma min jinqabad fin-nofs.

Ħafna drabi nippruvaw niġġudukaw illum, bil-kriterji tagħna tal-lum, dak li ġara l-bierah. B’dan il-mod mhux dejjem naslu biex nifhmu sewwa dak li fil-fatt ikun ġara.

 

Bosta jaħsbu li Mintoff kien kontra l-Indipendenza. Fil-fatt ma kienx. Wara li fallilu l-proġett tal-integration, ried Indipendenza differenti minn dik li kien qed jipproponi George Borg Olivier.

Fl-1964 kien lest jieħu riskju ekonomiku billi jibdel immedjatament l-ekonomija bbażata fuq il-bażi militari. Borg Olivier ma qabilx ma dan u ipprefera bidla gradwali. Beda jħejji l-pedamenti għall-industrija w t-turiżmu.

Għax il-bidla kienet ippjanat li tkun gradwali l-pajjiż kellu ċ-ċans jaddatta ruħu għaċ-ċirkustanzi ġodda. Ċirkustanzi ġodda nisslu żbalji ġodda li din id-darba ħadd ma seta jipponta subgħajh lejn l–Ingliżi dwarhom. Għall-ewwel darba r-rapprezentanti tar-Reġina kienu gallarija, ma kellhomx tort għal dak li ġara.

Meta l-Ingliżi ttrattaw ħażin lill-Maltin, ġew ikkritikati. Imma meta kienu l-Maltin stess li ttrattaw ħażin lill-“ħuthom” il-weġgħa kienet ħafna ikbar.

Din hi l-istorja tagħna. B’dak li jogħġobna u dak li ma jogħġobniex.

Dom Mintoff: a political bully

The film Dear Dom has elicited contrasting reactions. It reflects the whims of the man. Initially being way ahead of his contemporaries, he ended up detached from the effects of the changes which he pursued.

He rightly wanted Malta to exit the soonest from its Middle Ages. The temporal powers of the Church run by an archbishop-prince and the colonial rulers were his first targets. Deliberately he opted to bully his way through. The bulldozer was Dom Mintoff’’s preferred operational tool and strategy. Initially used against the colonisers and the Church it was subsequently used by Mr Mintoff against his own people.

His oratory as well as his negotiating skills were central throughout his political career. He radically reformed and expanded the welfare state created by his predecessor as Prime Minister and Labour leader, Sir Paul Boffa, whom he toppled after accusing him of not being capable of standing up to the colonial masters.

Mr Mintoff’s strategy of seeking to improve the nation’s standard of living through integration with the UK stood in stark contrast to that of his nemesis George Borg Olivier who opted for independence as the tool to improve Malta’s living conditions. Mr Mintoff’s strategy to achieve integration failed and eventually he turned to Plan B: to follow the road leading to independence, patiently developed by Dr Borg Olivier. He couldn’t stand that, as playing second fiddle was not his game.

Dr Borg Olivier was patient. Mr Mintoff was not. Independence for Dr Borg Olivier was a gradual process starting with the essentials of self-government and slowly building up the county’s infrastructure: a prerequisite for its social and economic development. That was too slow for Mr Mintoff’s temperament. His attitude was one seeking absolute control at day one. His pace was much faster than Dr Borg Olivier could ever get accustomed to. This was reflected in Mr Mintoff’s style of negotiations, in his demands and in the stormy foreign relations which developed as a result of his approach.

Mr Mintoff’s followers embarked on many a violent spree. One may trace the justification of violence as a political tool in the debate and declarations leading to the Independence Round Table Conference, in particular in what are known as Labour’s six political points (is-sitt punti). Lino Spiteri interviewed in Dear Dom, qualifies this reference to violence as a necessary tool in the rebellion against the colonial powers. While that was indeed one of its earliest manifestations, unfortunately it eventually became a tool for all seasons, when Mr Mintoff lost control of the hangers-on which surrounded him, including the notorious members of his Cabinets, those who had their own “bully boys”.

Violence shamed Mr Mintoff and the Labour Party many a time, most notably when The Times was burnt down on Black Monday, October 15, 1979. In 1984 even his handpicked successor was embarrassed when supporters (labelled as the aristocracy of the working class) went berserk at the Archbishop’s Curia and destroyed all they could see.

Mr Mintoff was not capable of standing up to the criminal behaviour which slowly developed around him until it engulfed him and his party. This was recently described by former Air Malta chairman Albert Mizzi in an interview carried in The Sunday Times on March 25. Mr Mizzi stated: “I remember one time when someone mentioned something to him about corruption. He turned to me and said, is it true? I replied: ‘That what’s people are saying’. His response was: ‘What can I do if that person has helped me to build up the party? Can I take action against him?’ You see, this is small Malta.” That is Mr Mintoff at the mercy of his sycophants: those who helped him build his party and then proceeded to squeeze it dry until the pips squealed.

Bullying of opponents was an essential characteristic of Mr Mintoff’s method of government. Obviously those who benefited from his methods and actions think otherwise.

They consider it as a minor and insignificant blip. Those at the receiving end tend however to recognise it as an essential element of the man’s method. Positive politics is less relevant if the implementation method adopted is unacceptable. As a result Labour’s achievements under his leadership related to the welfare state and the general upgrading of the rights of working men and women will be forever overshadowed.

Coercive methods were characteristic of the man who sought to achieve his targets by hook or by crook. The shareholders of the National Bank of Malta, their heirs and all those who stood in his way are living testimony to Mr Mintoff’s methods. He bullied his way through all opposition: in his party, in Parliament, in civil society, in industrial relations and in the economy. His bullying of intellectuals bequeathed an inheritance of mediocrity to his Labour Party.

When the historical dust will have settled there will be one issue which sticks out in defining the man. It will not be the welfare state but his political bullying which shaped his party for a generation.

published in The Times of Malta, May 5, 2012