Austin Bencini
Neutrality the price for democracy
Dom Mintoff's visit to the Labour Party's headquarters on the morrow of the media's reporting of the American Ambassador's questioning of Malta's status as a neutral country was, to say the least, diabolically co-incidental.
Yet, it was a sure reminder of what this country had to go through to put our democracy back in line with the minimum democratic requirement of any democratic state: that the government in power enjoys the support of the majority of the electorate. This fundamental principle was ignored for five years by two Labour governments led by Mr Mintoff and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici respectively following the 1981 elections.
Labour's extreme reluctance to remedy the undemocratic situation was described by Lino Spiteri, who was a minister in the years 1981-1987, at the recent launch of the Maltese edition of President Emeritus Guido de Marco's autobiography.
Mr Spiteri was clear that something had to be done to restore majority rule in Malta and, therefore, to avoid the repetition of the 1981 democratically perverse electoral result. However, he found opposition from such key Cabinet figures as Ġużè Cassar and other leading ministers, including the then Prime Minister, who were all propense to leave "well alone", for Labour, at least, if not for democracy.
Riveting was Mr Spiteri's rendering of the dramatic parliamentary debate on the eve of the 1987 election and which eventually opened the door to the saving of our democracy. He described how he had approached Mr Mintoff, then a backbencher, to see whether there was any chance of the electoral reform being debated at that sitting. Mr Mintoff physically pointed at Dr Mifsud Bonnici as the procrastinating factor to any solution.
It was at that stage, however, when Prof. de Marco, then deputy leader of the Nationalist Party in opposition, with the full knowledge of Eddie Fenech Adami, gave up his parliamentary time to allow Mr Mintoff to make his historic speech, which eventually allowed the "majority voting" reforms to be included in the package-deal amendments to the Constitution and which were adopted by a two-thirds majority of Parliament.
The tit-for-tat for majority rule was that the Constitution adopted the principle of neutrality and of non-alignment, which were so dear to Mr Mintoff. This is how Malta became a neutral state.
So is one being too imaginative to ask whether Mr Mintoff's visit was linked to Ambassador Kmiec's questioning the logic behind our definition of neutrality when today the Cold War is over following the Malta summit of 1989 and which still prohibits Malta Drydocks from repairing any warships belonging to the United States and to the now-defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
More fundamentally, is the Mintoffian soul of the Labour Party feeling that Joseph Muscat is more prepared than his predecessor to rehabilitate it, albeit at the cost of some revisionist rendering of the Mintoffian era?
The contributions by Dominic Fenech and Reno Calleja respectively, Labour general secretary and Cabinet minister at the time of the electoral perverse result of 1981, both playing the nostalgic political cord of when Labour were still in power, followed by the old power horse himself paying Dr Muscat a timely visit, are all indications that the Mintoffian soul of the Labour Party is definitely on the move.
One wonders what the Santian soul of the ex-MLP feels about the rehabilitation of the forces that brought his government to a far too early end following Mr Mintoff voting with the Nationalist Party to effectively force an early election.
Dr Muscat himself made it a point to have practically half of his shadow Cabinet filled by prominent politicians of the Mintoffian era, 22 years later. Something which cannot be said of Lawrence Gonzi's Cabinet.
So the question of whether our Constitution may or may not be amended to bring up to-date its definition of neutrality must be addressed to Dr Muscat and to his willingness to effect a definite break with the Mintoffian foreign policy that has dominated Labour's policies at least from Independence to date. The wind seems blowing in the other direction.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
19 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
GiovDeMartino@L Galea
Dec 10th 2009, 18:00
The FACT remains that t DID NOT GOVERN. Labour governed even though the PN had the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY and even though Mintoff had publicly and solemnly declared on tv that he would NOT govern unless he had the backing of the electorate.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Dec 10th 2009, 17:27
@albert leone ganado (7 hours, 8 minutes ago)
(a)"Times change and neutrality in its traditional sense has no longer relevance for us especially in the light of global upheavals" (b) "and bearing in mind the faulted and pressured way it entered our constitution"
Two questions if I may ask respectfully.
regarding part (b) I assume that the opposition could VERY EASILY have said "No!" ?
So why do we (always and forever) hear about "pressures" etc?
I'm sure that it was all down to bargaining where both sides accepted what the other side was proposing.
Accepting common ground... isn't that the basis of all agreement - give and take and compromise?
We all know that the PN left with what it wanted, too.
Do you hear LP now go on (forever) that it signed "with a pistol to its head"...?
Regarding part (a), so what kind of neutrality are you actually proposing if "active, non-aligned neutrality is now old fashioned?
Indeed, are you actually proposing that we should throw it away completely and take sides?
If so, with whom, why and how would we benefit?
albert leone ganado
Dec 10th 2009, 10:08
Times change and neutrality in its traditional sense has no longer relevance for us especially in the light of global upheavals and bearing in mind the faulted and pressured way it entered our constitution.
But as times change what I consider as the core of the Mintoffian soul must be willed to persist namely "Malta l-ewwel u qabel kollox". If we allow this mindset to be forgotten at best we will become no more than village at the peripheral of Europe shorn of all its traditional christian soul and all other values which distinguish us as a nation.
Galea. L
Dec 10th 2009, 09:48
e.cortis, N.Cortis, Ivan Grech Mintoff,Gerard Cassar
Agree with you
GiovDeMartino THe MLP would not have governed had PN had it its way. Why did the PN ask for s many recounts? Hypocrisy at its best.
Christopher Ripard
Dec 9th 2009, 21:07
@ John Baldachino
Britain does not have proportional representation, ergo you're comparison is farcical.
@ no one in particular
Mintoff's idea of "neutrality", - like most of his ideas - existed mostly inside his mind . . . and nowhere else. Hence we had military agreements with North Korea, Ciaucescu's Rumania and Libya (whose leader used to come here protected by his own troops with live weapons).
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Dec 9th 2009, 19:59
Part 2
2) Regardless of what the PN apologists try to advise the LP with...(sic!)
There is of course a very clear danger that in the leader's evident wish to be proactive and forward looking, then certain 'fundamentals' are overlooked or swept away.
This is not a matter of "nostalgia for past glorious times" but more to build upon solid foundations rather than on sand.
For instance, (in this case) neutrality is not for sale/bargain. It is essential to our nation's well being. There are those who see anything else as a matter of political/capital prostitution.
(God knows there has been enough of that, recently!!)
Solid basis=solid rest.
To me, there should only be one clear answer to such dangerous statements like:
"So the question of whether our Constitution may or may not be amended to bring up to-date its definition of neutrality must be addressed to Dr Muscat and to his willingness to effect a definite break with the Mintoffian foreign policy that has dominated Labour's policies at least from Independence to date"
As you seem to be closer to the action than I , would love to here your views on these matters... privately or otherwise.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Dec 9th 2009, 19:48
@ Joe Grima (Part1)
Thanks for the calrifiaction. In general, I agree with the explanation.
Two things that I wish to comment on based on the writings of the last few weeks. And I state beforehand that these are purley my thoughts only!
1)It will be a VERY sad day for the LP if we ever go back to the intolerance show over the last decade or so towards those who disagree with the mainstream. To me democracy is NOT that the majority rules but that the MINORITY have an EQUAL voice to state their beliefs/ideas. It is not necessarily so that the majority are always right and if one is in the minority and BELIEVES himself to be right then it is not a matter of accepting the majority as de facto but to be able (through persuasion) to carry on putting your point forward with a view to persuade others to come to your side....
Therefore the LP should NOT shun people like Profs Fenech who are standing up to be counted at a crucial point of the party's (and leader's) way forward. All voices should be heard and then a truly well informed decision can be made.
Joe Grima
Dec 9th 2009, 19:16
@Ivan Grech Mintoff. To me the Mintoffian soul represents the entire stuctured movement of Union and Party that followed Mintoff in the implementation of his socialist policies which Mintoff cornerstoned on active neutrality and non-alignment. Apart from the Neutrality clause, so dear to Dom, the rest of the Mintoffian soul has been watered down and may be almost gone. Times have changed. The LP has changed. I am not saying that any of its beliefs that constuitute the foundations of the Party's raison d'etre have changed or are likely to be changed, but the approaches are different and the embrace is wider, as it should be. The LP will always be Malta's Democratic Socialist Party, but closer to the Eureopan idea than to that of the former socialist republics. Even the latter have now moved on. Today's approach is more embracing, softer in the implementation of socialist principles, more utilitarian, less ideological. Principles are obviously not for changing.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Dec 9th 2009, 18:22
@ Joe Grima
"Austin refers to a "Mintoffian soul on the move". I don't think there is a Mintoffian soul left to move and leave its mark on current events. Times change and people change with them. "
I disagree with this analysis.
I think the "soul" being referred to here is the "beliefs, his values and what makes the man tick"?
If there is ANY lesson to be gotten from lessons around us (Afghanistan, Iraq, Christianity, Socialism, Capitalism , Communism etc) is that one might "kill people by the tens of thousands" whose belief you wish to eradicate, but a "belief" will be around way, way after we have all turned to dust...
Yes, times change. Beliefs, however, tend to fade in and out with time rather than disappear...
;)
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Dec 9th 2009, 18:13
"... when today the Cold War is over following the Malta summit of 1989 and which still prohibits Malta Drydocks from repairing any warships belonging to the United States and to the now-defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?"
Unfortunately,this was utterly ignored by the (nationalist) government led by EFA.
Efa's govt allowed american warships to be repaired/maintained in our docks knowing full well that this ship (the USS Dinald Cooke) then sailed to Iraq where it launched the FIRST missiles into Iraq...
Shame on those who pretend to uphold democratic values single handedly, on the then govt and the then opposition who all (knowingly) stood silent on the murderous matter in progress.
To add insult to injury, we all know the present state of our drydocks. We probably can't even mend a broken spoon let alone any form of ship....!
Finally, I for one truly hope that the only ammendment made to the neutrality clause would be to change "TWO Superpowers" to "ANY Superpower" as this, I am sure was the real sentiment of the clause when it was written.
The present neutrality clause is the ONLY thing safeguarding Malta from (knowingly or otherwise!) being dragged into someone else's war...
GiovDeMartino@N Cortis
Dec 9th 2009, 17:32
In 1971 labour had MORE votes than the PN and GOVERNED. In 1981 the PN had not more votes, but THE ABSOLUTE MAJORITY and did not govern. Cannot be simpler!
e.cortis
Dec 9th 2009, 16:41
@Gerald Cassar.
Don't forget that Malta forms part of the Partnership For Peace under the auspices of NATO. According to words going around, our boys in uniform will soon be taking part in a "PEACE" mission to SOMALIA !!. Peace mission, means fighting the rebels, nothing less nothing more. How ironic. While Somalians are arriving in Malta to get away from the troubles there, our boys will be going to face the rebellion and anarchy rampant there!!. May they return home safely !!.
Mr.Bencini seems to believe that once the Soviet Union no longer exists, RUSSIA is a dead giant. How far from reality you are !. How come every American President has been keen to come to terms on reducing nuclear arms?. Why, may I ask ?. Thanks to Barack Obama only a few weeks ago another such agreement was signed. And do not forget that Russia has a numerical advantage of nuclear weapons over the U.S. Earlier this year a U.S. Carrier task force was surprised when a Chinese submarine surfaced near the aircraft carrier without the mighty task force with all its sofisticated technology realizing how it got there !!. So much for U.S. superiority !!.
N.Cortis
Dec 9th 2009, 16:03
Mr.Bencini,------hope you remember the fact that in the 1971 election results,the Labour got more than 4,000(four thousands votes) more than the PN. Inspite of this,the PN made several recounts on the 5th district (which happened to have a small difference of some 5 votes in favour of Labour!!!!!
PN at that time forgot all about democracy,and insisted on recounts,and made everything possible to remain in power!!!!!
It is not a case of something done under PN is good,while done under MLP is not!!!!
As you quoted correctly,it was Dom Mintoff (who although a back bencher at that time) who managed to persuade his side to vote in favour of the necessary amendments!!! So one must say a big thanks to the democractic Dom Mintoff!!
Gerard Cassar
Dec 9th 2009, 16:03
Being so much against neutrality, it would appear that these people are so keen to take up arms within NATO forces, they will surely volunteer to increase the NATO ranks
I don't have any idea who this Austin Bencini is. But if he has a family and children, and Malta renounces its neutrality, it is hoped that making alliance with Nato, young people will be enlisted to go and fight other's war and his relatives will be the first to enlist. We will surely not witness parents making the impossible to try to avoid such enlistment.
Being neutral we are in good company: Switzerland and the Vatican.
karm cassar
Dec 9th 2009, 15:36
The question of neutrality should be decided by the people in a referendum and not by a few people .
John Baldacchino
Dec 9th 2009, 13:52
The events and mishaps that put Maltese democracy into a crisis in the 1980s are broadly regretted across party allegiance. However the premise of this article is somewhat misleading. Anomalies between seats and votes are not unique. In the last Westminster Elections, Labour’s 35.3% produced 356 seats against the Tories' 32.3% giving them 198 seats and the Lib-Dems' 22.1%, giving them 62 seats. If one were to go with vote percentage the Tories and Lib-Dems should be in a coalition government (with a combined 54.4% of the votes) with Labour in opposition. Somehow both parties never entertained the idea even when this pattern of disproportion is commonplace in British election results. As to neutrality and it being a relic of the past or some wild "Mintoffian ‘ideology’", Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria remain (as far as I know) neutral countries within the EU. To speculate what Mintoff might have discussed with Joseph Muscat, just as the stars appeared to line up with the US Ambassador's assessment of the concept of neutrality does not help much in terms of a serious discussion of Malta’s recent history.
V. Zammt
Dec 9th 2009, 13:22
And, Dr Austin, at that 1987 parliamentary debate, Dr Fenech Adami did mention, with incredible forsesight, to his eternal credit, the break-down of the Communist system two years later. That was not too far away and, with the benefit of hindsight, there were tell-tale signs for the discerning. But we 'laboured' on. I hope that speech of the leader of the opposition, then, was included in his ‘Inservi’. If it was not it should be published on its own for its merits.
Joe Grima
Dec 9th 2009, 11:13
A very interesting political analysis by Austin Bencini. I am likely to agree with him that Mintoff's surprise visit to the LP HQ was in no way coincidental and the fact that he wanted 30 mins alone with Joseph leads me to believe that the old warhorse was placing himself in the loop again. Mintoff is an ever-vigilant political animal. Nothing of any poltical importance escapes him. He would had definitely noted the US Ambassador's speech and he would not have been pleased. Questioning the realisation of his life's ambition by a US Ambassador would have rung alarm bells in Mintoff's mind and his visit to Joseph would have been more likely connected to that scenario than to anything else. Insofar as the electoral changes before the 87 election - those were willed by Mintoff and effected because of him. The result of the 1981 elections, in which he lost the voting but not the constitutional majority, continued to rankle with him for long. Austin refers to a "Mintoffian soul on the move". I don't think there is a Mintoffian soul left to move and leave its mark on current events. Times change and people change with them.
Dominic Fenech
Dec 9th 2009, 10:53
Austin, is there any fragment of its legacy at all that the Labour Party might be allowed to retain?