Mario Vella
Looking for Lord Strickland
Earlier this month, Joseph Muscat honoured the memory of Lord Gerald Strickland, Malta’s Prime Minister between 1924 and 1932 and founder of a line of newspapers – beginning with the modest evening four-pager Il-Progress in the 1920s – of which The Times and its Sunday sister publication are the justifiably proud heirs.
Gerald Strickland died on August 22, 1940, aged 79, in the second month of the “Italian siege” phase of the Axis’ effort to bomb the island into submission or, at least, out of action. Two days later – apparently an error – the Germans dropped the first bombs on central London. The RAF retaliated with a raid on Berlin and Hitler followed with the order to go ahead with the Blitz, thereby starting an escalating spiral of raids on British and German cities. Lord Strickland would not have been surprised.
Dr Muscat’s gesture elicited a variety of responses. The problem is, of course, that, short of polling the reactions of a sufficiently large random sample of the population to what people think of every political event, the only clue we have of what people think is by relying on letters to the editor, comments on the online version of the papers that report the event, opinion columns, what political parties and other entities as well as their members say, what friends, colleagues and acquaintances tell you, etc. As with any self-selecting sample, this is hardly satisfactory but, alas, it is all we have.
My hunch is that a good proportion of those that did hear of the Leader of the Opposition’s laying of a wreath at the foot of Lord Strickland’s monument at the Upper Barrakka Gardens, perceive it as a positive development. They probably see it as a step – albeit a small but not isolated one as far as this politician is concerned – away from the unthinking tribalism of our political life.
There are, on the other hand, those whose own unthinking tribalism prevents them from seeing anyone not of their own political tribe as the implacable foe. S/he is constructed as a perfidious antagonist who always was and always will be the irreducible enemy with whom any form of dialogue and understanding is impossible if not, indeed, undesirable.
The problem with these persons is that if and when change does take place around them, then it will simply escape their attention. Their mindset is such – a tribal cognitive mode, as it were – that if the “other-as-enemy” says or does what does not correspond to what one believes is what s/he normally says or does, then it is at best ignored or at worst interpreted as trickery, treachery or opportunism aimed at chasing votes and duping the weak minded. Their world is eternally divided into two: us (the good) and them (the bad).
There’s also a third category, that of the free spirits that imagine themselves to be hovering above the political fray in a celestial sphere reserved for those that are too intelligent and pure to stand on the same ground that we mere mortals have to stand on. In their eyes, whatever is said or done in the political sphere is, by definition, treacherous, opportunistic, devious and merely intended to catch votes. The problem with these guys and girls is that they too tend to miss signs of change. The world is, in their eyes, fundamentally unchanging and is divided into two: the unsullied wise (themselves) and the bad world down there inhabited by the tricksters and the tricked.
Dr Muscat’s tribute to Lord Strickland should not come as a surprise. To start with, it is consistent with his approach to other political parties since his election to the PL’s leadership. Judge them on the merits of what they say or do and not on the basis of prejudices or stereotypes. This is by no means an easy approach because political leaders must calculate the effect of their actions on all of the electorate, their own followers included. But it can be done.
As for those that have dismissed the PL’s leader’s bold decision to show his appreciation of Lord Strickland’s role in our national narrative, on grounds that he should have first of all apologised for the events of Monday, October 15, 1979, one can only remind them that he did. Two years ago, addressing the Tumas Foundation for Education in Journalism, he very candidly said that what took place on that Black Monday “did not weaken the politicians or the institutions that suffered the attacks, (…) but the perpetrators and the politicians who in people’s eyes represented them” (www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091016/local/black-monday-should-never-have-happened-labour-leader.277592).
On this same occasion, he confirmed what he had already declared immediately upon his election as PL leader, namely that he apologised to “all those that were hurt by the actions of individuals that used the PL after which they possibly dumped it”.
Some others expressed surprise that Dr Muscat paid tribute to what they referred to as an apologist of the British Empire. While there is no doubt that he supported the Empire and could not imagine a Malta outside of it, in the Maltese context Lord Strickland played a role that was also progressive. I’ll be discussing this in two weeks’ time on this page.
Dr Vella blogs at http://watersbroken.wordpress.com .
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Edric Micallef Figallo
Oct 10th 2011, 23:12
When writing on history one should avoid blatant errors. Strickland was not Malta's Prime Minister between 1924 and 1932, 1924-1927 featured a UPM/PDN and then PN government. As far as the period 1927-1932 can be considered, this is problematic in itself constitutionally speaking and Strickland's role there was limited by British decisions. Moreover, he was also thrown out of power by the electorate in 1932 and he probably garnered the greatest electoral defeat a main political figure has ever had to suffer in Malta. As far as the Nationalists' animosity towards him, that is all perfectly well. It is apt to remember that beyond his ardently Imperialist political vision, and all the talk of progressive here and there (one should perhaps consider that the Nationalist PDN had a social programme was even more radical than Labour's and Nationalist governments of the era actually did better than the Compact on that front), Strickland had betrayed the Nationalists at the time of Fortunato Mizzi and they never forgot that. If the author is remembering Strickland, perhaps he should also start by recalling the infamous Sei Maggio incident, with Maltese protestors being beaten up and Strickland laughing his heart out from a balcony.
Ms pat muscat
Aug 30th 2011, 20:25
@Saliba. Strickland was the victim of Church and PN dirty political games. If Lord Strickland was a gentleman, the Church and or PN were not as they did not play a fair game.Indeed the stratagem of 'dnub il-mejjet ' cropped up again to diswade voters from voting against the Church's political interference.Unfortunately
Church has not learned and the political wing of the Church interfered again to stop the separation of Church and State...always with a little help from the PN!
Gianninu Saliba
Aug 30th 2011, 17:30
What can I say, Lord Strickland, as we all know was very pro "The British Empire" and what's what his politicfal party stood for. The Labour Party joint Strickland in government in 1924 and that could have implied that the PL was also a pro Empire party. But then, Dom Mintoff fought tooth and nail for Integration with Britain... yes the Empire was gone then, but the remnants were still there. Need I say more? Birds of a feather flock together. Am I mistaken, but didn't the Church having a go at both of them? There was one major difference between the two gentlemen. Lord Strickland was a gentleman who respected democracy. What can we say about Mintoff? Let's all forget the 70s and 80s and let's forget that his best buddy was the almost deposed Libyan dictator. And Joseph Muscat , where does he fit in this puzzle? Usually he sits on the fence, but in this case his loyalty is towards two imperialists, one of which is a dictator's friend. The fact that the Church had a go at both Strickland and Mintoff, it might be a reason why Joseph was so much pro divorce. Does he have revenge intentions towards the Catholic Church? I want to believe that he doesn't. Do you, Joseph?
Mr Michael Grech
Aug 29th 2011, 18:22
Very good article. Unfortunately, instead of asking questions relating to the political significance of such event; questions like 'What was the purpose of the commemoration? An attempt by Dr Muscat to appeal to that section of the middle class that may feel some kind of affinity with this historical figure? How will he proceed in such overtures given that for decades this electorate had drifted to Strickland's nemesis, the PN? How will these openings go down with the Labour working class hard-core?' (Lord Stickland was after all a Tory MP, who opposed proposals to tax the most affluent Maltese to finance the welfare provisions the Compact government enacted, and was one of Manwel Dimech's foes). Instead, they end up doing ridiculous historico-moralising (see the first comment) on an event; condemnable and dastardly as it was; which occurred when Dr Muscat was five and Lord Strickland was dead. Obviously, questions regarding the fact that the PN, Lord's Strickland (and originally the Times') major nemesis, were the main electoral beneficiaries of the event in question are never asked. And these would not have to be pseudo-moralistic questions. Instead, they should be questions which throw some light on the nature of politics, including the shifting and variable nature of political alliances.
Polly Bonello
Aug 29th 2011, 17:19
Just as feudalism was more progressive than slavery, and capitalism more progressive than feudalism, Lord Strickland had a more progressive mind set than the PN leaders of that time. One must not forget that the PN leaders were against social mobility and a progressive society, especially where the worker.s social progress was concerned, So yes Strickland was more progressive compared to the arch-reactionary quasi fascists PN of those times.
Mr Carmelo Micallef
Aug 29th 2011, 13:19
@ Mario Vella
The concern some of us have with Joseph Muscats change is that it seems to be a reversion to an unwelcome past accompanied by a deluge of revisionist propoganda and popularist statements of an incontinent nature.
For some thinking people the jury is still out.
For some thinking people the answer is already no thank you.
The electorate will give us their verdict in 2013.
Mr d. attard
Aug 29th 2011, 09:38
Good Post. Just a point - It is true that Lork Strikland's vision of Malta was that of staying within the British spehere of influence, but that was a very reasonable call at the time. Lord Strikland remained a Maltese first and foremost, living Maltese culture even if very comfortable with the vibes of Westminister. This was amply shown at a later stage when his daughter, who continued to enjoy a unique influence in Britain, was a stauch opponent to the prospect of integration between Malta and the UK...many say because she feared that Malta may actually lose her religious identity in the process. Therefrore as a liberal reformer in Malta, Lord Strikland's achievments were not thre fruits of a colonizer but had their inspiration from his Maltese impulses and his closeness to the Government of the day.