Austin Sammut
How does 1981 come into it?
I would have described the odious comparison between the present political situation and that of 1981, which Labour is playing around with, as a farce had 1981 not been so tragic.
The repeated audacity of the Labour leadership is amazing. In 1981, the Labour Party did not have the backing of the majority of the people but in accordance with the then Constitution was perfectly entitled to form a government.
One does not even need to argue or establish that the situation was then both morally and politically incorrect. That this was so has been stated publicly and unequivocally by no less than the Labour leader and his parliamentary deputy. Wow!
Thirty years later. Today, we have a government which acquired a clear, albeit slim, majority in 2008. Any comparison is clear. Today, you have a government of the people. In 1981 you had a government against the people. Is a mandate not the hallmark and leading principle of democracy?
Need we go further? It is only an election or a vote of no confidence in Parliament in terms of the Constitution that can remove a government’s mandate. None of this has happened since 2008.
To say, further, that the government lost its parliamentary majority in the recent vote is true but no vote of no confidence was passed. Accordingly, there is absolutely no termination of the prevailing mandate.
I will go further, in full agreement with my learned colleague and namesake, Austin Bencini, writing in this newspaper last Saturday, that the Speaker’s vote was unnecessary.
Many have compared the vote of no confidence moved by deputy Labour leader Anġlu Farrugia (why him?) to a football match. The vote, or the score, was a draw. The opposition challenged the government to the match, convinced they would win, but all they got was a draw. Can any genius on this planet explain how one can win with a draw; an equal no of goals scored? Another farce.
The Prime Minister and his party, though the vote of no confidence failed, may have been weakened (they lost a player) but they did not lose. They had to go back to the dressing room to remedy this weakness but by no means did they lose in Parliament. And this is exactly what the Prime Minister did.
He did not only ask his players for a vote of confidence but opened up his position to any other aspiring coaches who wished to contest him in his position. It is a purely internal party affair.
Now the question of instability, uncertainty, calling an early election and the like is another matter, on which I have already had the occasion to comment.
Back to 1981. The odious comparison is an insult to the people who voted in that election – Nationalist or Labour. And, coming to think of it, I do not believe that the Labour Party is genuinely sincere in its admission that the 1981 election was morally and politically incorrect. Would its leadership have admitted this had the present political situation not arisen? They have only taken this line to use as a weapon against the government.
But I’m afraid their “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” game has failed. There are a number of old hands from 1981 still around in high positions in the party. Can they tell us what their position was regarding Dom Mintoff’s wish to call another election shortly after the 1981 perverse result?
And what do they have to say about broadcasting and “Dardir Malta” in 1981? Again, they have had the audacity to compare public broadcasting then with public broadcasting now. I have also expressed my views on broadcasting in this small, highly partisan country of ours.
I will not go into the merits of how PBS is being run today, lest I be accused of having some hidden agenda due to my past association with the station. But I am on record as having expressed my belief that PBS, the Broadcasting Authority and the party stations (which should not exist at all) should undergo a total overhaul. However, all this has nothing to do with 1981.
I clearly remember waiting on counting night with some good friends, all set up to try and come out with some predictions as we expected the results to start leaking out. We had some rudimentary equipment, namely electric calculators to do this. None of the sophisticated electronics we have today. But there were no results.
The famous tal-ġakketta blu (blue jackets) were fighting their battle of fear against the machine gun-toting SMU at the Ħal Far counting hall. My colleagues and myself were sitting on the floor of Eddie Fenech Adami’s office at the Nationalist Party’s HQ. Waiting and waiting.
Sitting there with Dr Fenech Adami were Ċensu Tabone and Italian Senator Angelo Bernassola, who regularly assiduously followed Malta’s elections.
We watched what was, at least, my first episode of Fawlty Towers; in black and white, of course, since colour TV was considered a luxury beyond the people. Suddenly, at about dawn I suppose (and no results communicated), we had a screen full of Rebħa Soċjalista (Socialist victory) and the tune of Run Rabbit Run.
How’s that for comparing public broadcasting now with that of the 1980s? I could go on and on about those days. I just hope that all those who were around at the time and were old enough will associate themselves with these reminiscences and relate them to their children and grandchildren.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
34 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Emma Xerri
Feb 7th, 23:00
In actual fact, both governments were against the people. The modern one is controlled by local vested interests and by every directive that comes out of Brussels, irrespective if it is not for the common good of the citizens of Malta.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 7th, 20:23
"My colleagues and myself were sitting on the floor of Eddie Fenech Adami’s office at the Nationalist Party’s HQ. Waiting and waiting."
Was Zeppi l-Hafi anywhere in sight Mr Sammut?
Joseph E Briffa
Feb 7th, 19:02
Anybody who tries to compare the situation today with that in the 1980s is either ignorant of the facts as he isn't old enough to have experienced those times, or, if old enough, he is either intent on deliberatly distorting the facts or he is suffering from amnesia. The terror experienced by the poeple in those dark days was intense; and nobody, whether labourite or nationalist was immune. Who would have dared to comment on let alone criticise the doings of the regime? Nobody felt safe to utter the slightest comment in public that could be interpreted as being out of line with the policy of the regime.. Dr Sammut made reference to the electrifying atmosphere at the counting hall at Hal-Far in December 1981 and the fact that no counts of votes were announced during the terrible long Sunday night. Those who are of a certain age all remember the way the infamous Xandir Malti greeted its viewers on Monday morning with the Bongu Malta Socjalista and the song Run Rabbit Run, and this when it was already obvious that the PN had garnered more first count votes than Labour. This wasn't all; what happened in the streets on that Monday and the following days will remain entrenched in the memory of all those who were unlucky enough to witness those shameful events - reminiscences of the French revolution.. Not quite the same situation we have today.
Edgar Azzopardi
Feb 7th, 18:09
"" Today, you have a government of the people. In 1981 you had a government against the people
- Austin SammutT.
Is that so Dr Sammut. ? You have convenietly forgotten the shameful vote AGAINST THE PEOPLE only last June when IN THE DIVORCE VOTE , this Govt VOTED AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE .
This same Govt is , as we speak, going against the wish of the people to holdd a general election to sort out the mess , insecurity and instability we are in.
Dr Sammut and his ilk enjoy going back to the past, because the present is very unsavoury, and hope that blinking the people with the events of the past, will blind them to what is effectively happening in the present.
if you really think that this Govt. IS FOR THE PEOPLE WHAT IS HOLDING BACK DR GONZI FOR GETTING THIS CERTIFICATE FROM THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES??
P. Ciantar
Feb 7th, 20:02
hey Edgar the vote on divorce was not on Govt. I voted PN 7 times and voted yes for divorce. So what is your thinking. The divorce Vote passed because many nationalists voted yes
Tommy Vella
Feb 7th, 20:04
If the government voted against the will of the people how come that now we have divorce available?
m. borg (slm)
Feb 8th, 13:10
For the PRIME MINISTER to vote against the result is epitome of total disregard to democracy. The vote of the other nationalist MPs does not carry the same weight as that of the Prime Minister, that is why the people are disgusted on how the PM voted.
After the referendum a free vote was no longer an option, that option was forfeitted when Dr Gonzi threw the problem into the people's lap.
Tommy Vella
Feb 8th, 14:33
@ m. borg (slm)
The vote of the other nationalist MPs does not carry the same weight as that of the Prime Minister.
Does that mean that the 34 votes against the no-confidence motion are worth more than the 34 votes for it?
m. borg (slm)
Feb 8th, 17:01
Of course not each vote is the same one vote, but what the prime minister does carries more weight than his subordinates.
Do not try to twist the argument, just like in an opers a mistake by the soprano caris more emphatic than that of a chorus girl.
Tommy Vella
Feb 8th, 19:12
So in the divorce vote it carried more weight but here no. How is that for consistency? Dejjem kif jaqblilna.
John Zammit
Feb 7th, 15:12
Dr Sammut Hope you remember that the last election The PN was able to Govern because of an amendment made to the original one When it was made Not necessary to have 50+ which the ON didn't have
pat muscat
Feb 7th, 14:31
And do you think Dr Sammut, that the PN would have acted differently in 1981? One only needs to go back to the 60s to see the moral double standards of the PN, when it stole not one but two elections in the 6O's. The PN had no qualms to form a government, notwithstanding that the 60's elections were held without the basic tenets of human rights, freedom of expression, free conscience, free broadcasting, and the repulsive mortal sin! And any way Dr Sammut, we are living in 2112, and the Maltese had already elected an MLP government in 1996 notwithstanding the scare tactics of the PN.
John Zammit
Feb 7th, 13:05
Dr. Austin Sammut should know better that if were speaking about majority .That no party got the 50+in 2008
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Feb 7th, 13:02
" the Labour Party did not have the backing of the majority of the people" - neither does this Govt. if you add up the first votes for both LP and AD, they are more than GonziPN got. And that's not adding the ones who did not vote. But of course the two parties have made sure that they two alone remain elected to parliament.
Carmel Grima
Feb 7th, 12:05
Sa issa Dr. Jos Muscat ga ghamel ir-raba dikjarazzjoni zbaljata, u din wahda minhom. Ohra meta qal, jew ahjar kixef ghajnu, li jekk jitlaq fil-gvern jaghamel private member bill li jdahhal id-divorzju. Kieku halla din ghal qabel l-elezzjoni, meta iktar minn nofs Malta riedithu, kien jitla zgur, imma kieku u kien qatt ma qaghadu flimkien! Ohra meta, accenna, fil-konferenza ta' l-ewwel li il-kap tal-partit ghandu jigi ivvutat mit-tesserati kollha u mhux mid-delegati biss. Dlonk Dr. Gonzi induna li se jergghu idahhlu lil Dr. G. Abela u hatafulhom minghajr kliem. Nitlob lid-dirigenza tal-PL biex jikkejterjaw ghall-floater billi ikunu iktar maturi ghax ma Dr. Gonzi trid tkun iktar kawtiel biex tilhqu.
Pat Hobson
Feb 7th, 13:56
@Carmel Grima. Joseph Muscat's declaration was no mistake. I'm sure he's studying the PN's strategy closely. If you follow the PN's speeches of these last few weeks, you'd notice that they are mounting an attack on the PL based on its past history, that is the 80's. I bet Joseph Muscat has noticed this too, for how come he came out and declared that we're in the state that we were in 1981? But of course there are differences. The PN opposition of the early 80's was very different from what the PL opposition is now. The PN opposition was tantamount to a revolution against the legitimate government (yes it was legal and legitimate according to the consitution). What was not political and moral, as Joseph Muscat himself said, was that it was in government against the will of the majority. Today we're in the same situation. The PN government has lost its majority in Parliament, it's only lifebelt is the Speaker. The other difference is that the PL opposition is doing any boycotts, threats, bombs, industrial strife and political manifestations. Now notice the difference between the PN opposition and the PL's. You'll see who has the country's interest at heart!
Tommy Vella
Feb 7th, 17:17
@ Pat Hobson
How come that when the PN was the victim (1981) it was in the wrong. Now that the PN is the bully, it is still in the wrong. PL is always purer than the lilies. Is this the new tune that you and all the Lil'Elves have decided to sing?
Pat Hobson
Feb 8th, 11:17
@Tommy Vella. The PN was never a victim. It was an agent provocateur!
Tommy Vella
Feb 8th, 15:46
@ Pat Hobson
If PN was never the victim, it was not the victim in 1981. I got it! The MLP was the victim then.
Does that mean that JM does not know what he is saying when condemning those years? I wonder!
Evarist Saliba
Feb 7th, 11:31
@ Robert Henry Bugeja
You seem to overlook the fact that the comparision with the election result of 1981 was not created by Austin Sammut but by the Labour Party. Please address your question on decency to the right person.
@ J.Bog
We have it from MLP sources that the idea of an early election to correct the perverse election result of 1981 was made by Mintoff himself to his colleagues, who refused to follow that line, one person going as far as to say "over my dead body". Had there been a genuine will to respect the democratic verdict of the electorate, there was nothing to stop the MLP from declaring its readiness to act on Mintoff's own proposal, obviously after taking the necessary steps to avoid a repetition. All evidence shows that this readiness was absent, and this explains the reaction of the Nationalist Party.
For the record, I would have chosen to fight the perversly elected government in parliament rather than outside it.
Robert Henry Bugeja
Feb 7th, 14:06
It didnt occur to me that you were Austin's mouthpiece, cause in that case I would have gladly forward it to you first, dear Evarist.
Evarist Saliba
Feb 7th, 16:41
I am nobody's mouthpiece, and your comment is banal to the extreme. Obviously, you have no argument to counter what I have said.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 8th, 16:01
What ever Mintoff wanted and what ever some labour MPs said the nationalists walked out of parliament, gave up their seat (losing the majority in the process) and boycotted anything that had to do with government for more than 2 years, only to return to parliament by being co-opted enmasse without a single vote to their name. Like you said they should have fought the case in parliament and not from outside with weekly mass meetings and summer beach picnics. It was the PN's fault to waste over two years in which time constitutional ammendments could have been carried out and earlier elections held.
victor bonello
Feb 7th, 11:28
The vote in parliament last week clearly showed the present Government does not hold a majority.
If Franco Debono is no nut case, he clearly spoke out his thoughts of the presnt situation, his opinion of the the Prime Minister and that of his top ministers. He also pointed out why many that voted GonziPN are now fed up with each and every mess that has been commited and which we tax payers have to pay for.
Now if Franco Debono has not been threatened or paid, and if what he spoke was his honest thought.. what else can be said.
Had all this come just from the opposition we would have taken it with a pinch of salt, but this is coming from within!!! where is the majority?
William Flynn
Feb 7th, 11:23
The trouble with this whole thing is that not only, as Mr Sammut says, was "no vote of no confidence" passed, but that no vote of confidence was passed either. Was it Mr Sammut?
And what does that leave us with? A Parliament doing the splits....risking a great injury where it really hurts. And for what reason?
So that the PN can retain a leader who:
voted against the will of the people.
put his personal religious beliefs above the needs of the people he's supposed to serve.
awarded himself and MP's a fat raise in the face of the worst financial crisis in living memory
and is unable to garner a vote of confidence from his parliament.
The PN as a party has a responsibility to remove their leader; but that aside, they must remember politics is about winning. They can't win with LG as leader; and they can't win with "religio et patria" any more.
“Religio” is a liability as the divorce referendum has shown. Ditch it!
It's Patria, Patria, Patria.
Alfred E. Zahra
Feb 7th, 15:02
Hello Flynn, bored in Australia?
William Flynn
Feb 7th, 21:08
Hello Zahra
And your scintillating, disarming counter argument is?
Pat Hobson
Feb 7th, 11:17
Joseph Muscat accepted the 1981 electoral scenario as politically and morally incorrect. Would you and your ilk recognize the Opposition's acts of those years as politically and morally incorrect too ? Or this is a case of two weights and two measures? It wasn't the MLP in government that brought instability on the island, but the opposition, through its boycotts, weekly political manifestations, business threats, industrial strife,bombs, violence (yes, the opposition has its hand in this too!) and bringing the country on the brink of civil war! The PN must put its hand on its heart (if it has a heart) and do as Joseph Muscat did, recognize that the PN was at fault too in those years!
Carmel Serracino-inglott
Feb 7th, 18:14
No Pat Hobson I do not believe a word of what you said. What you said is just not true. I am lucky that i and my neighbours are still alive after the a massive bomb exploded behind my door. And do not believe that poor Karen was killed by an NP letter bomb but I am not going to blame anybody because their is no proof.
Mind I suffered many other things just because I did not agree with the government's policies. Those people the elite of labour are still alive near the new PL. How can one forget them ; forgive yes forget no lest we suffer again together with our economy.
VINCENT WILLIAMS
Feb 7th, 10:46
Just after the 1981 election result the daily PN newspaper editorially stated that for the third consecutive time PN lost the general elections. At that time the Constitution stated that the largest Party which obtain the majority of MPs will govern. So much so that through all that legislature the PN which was very capable to win many cases in courts never went to the courts regarding the 1981 election results. Because it was very clear that legally PN would have lost the case without any doubt.
The most political mistake that the PN did at that time was that it abstained from attending Parliament. More and more that in every country where the Democratic Parliamentary system works. The government will be won by that Party which gets the largest number of MPs and not the largest number of votes. Similar results, that is, that the government was won by the Party which obtained the most seats and not the Party which obtained the most votes. Happened for more than once in the past in the British elections.
This does not means that the 1981 result was a good one for the stability of the country. Far from it. But the instability that had developed after was not only the fault of the Labour Party. But it was also the fault of the PN because of the way the Party handled the situation. In fact later on the PN changed his tactics and attended Parliament.
The situation was becoming dangerous even before the 1981 election. Just to mention one example. The then Vice PN leader when he was attending a conference in Portugal of the Christians Democratic Party. In his speech made he made an appeal to the Christians Democratic Government's not to help in any way the Maltese Government. The Labour Government of 1976 was elected democratically and won that election by obtaining the majority of the votes and of the seats as well.
Through the years both Parties posted the electoral districts to their political advantage. The PN did it in 1971 and 1996. Although in 1971 the PN lost the election because it did not obtained the majority of the votes. The daily PN newspaper editorially declared that as the PN won more electoral districts than the Labour Party. The PN had the right to govern the country.
The elections of 1932, 1962 and 1966 are part of the dark story of the PN. Where the vote was not free and where such elections were the most undemocratic not only in Malta. Bet where ever the Democratic Parliamentary system is adopted.
Robert Henry Bugeja
Feb 7th, 10:29
Austin in nies issa qed jghixu mhux fin 1981. Il problemi ta issa qed jiffaccjaw mhux tan 1981. Jekk fadallek naqra dicenza jekk jogghbok ieqaf tipprova titfa lil dan il pajjiz lura fiz zmien biex taljena lil poplu mill problemi kbar ta dan il Gvern prezenti. Mur ara kif int u l-Gvern li tappogga ser issolvu din l-incertezza kbira li qed tifn lil dan il pajjiz taghna. Din hija il veru problema, illum 2012... u mhux fin 1981!
Peter Zahra
Feb 7th, 12:43
Ghandek ragun siehbi li qed nixghu f 2012 u mhux f 1981.
Pero l problema hija wahda, li filwaqt li Joseph Muscat qed jiftahar li ha jkollu l aqwa kabinett li Malta qatt ratt, fl istess hin il partit tal labour ghad ghandu hafna nies u deputati li f dawk iz zmienijiet koroh kienu parti integrali mill aminstrazzjoni tal gvern ta Mintoff. Jekk bhall Karmenu Vella, Debono Grech, Leo Brincat, Alex Sciberras Trigona, Marie louise Colerio, George Vella, Alfred Sant etc etc jkunu parti min dan l aqwa kabinett nahseb li kullhadd jista jasal ghal konkluzjonijiet tieghu x jistaw jsarfu.
Ma nafx kif ma jithajjarx naqra Joe Grima biex jerga johrog bhala xi deputat gdid halli taqdu il mija !!!
Ghalhekk siehbi, l poplu b' ragun jerga jiftakar f zmienijiet ta 80 meta bhal ma kiteb Lino Spiteri f artiklu ricenti qal li marmalja li kienet taghmel dik il vjolenza kollha kienu aktarx mercenarji nazzjonalisti !!
U allura b dawn is sinjali zghar imma sinifikanti l poplu malajr jinduna li l lupu libes il libsa ta haruf u li l hanzir li taqtlu denbu hanzir jibqa !!!!!
J. Borg
Feb 7th, 09:39
"There are a number of old hands from 1981 still around in high positions in the party. Can they tell us what their position was regarding Dom Mintoff’s wish to call another election shortly after the 1981 perverse result?"
If an election was held at that time, can you tell us what would have been the outcome. As there wasn't time to change things and so we would have had the same result.
The PN at that time for me did a grave mistake by not attending parlamentary sittings. They should have attended and stressed for constitutional changes, which were agreed upon later. That's why labour stayed until the very end, because talks on constitutional changes prolonged for a long time.
So, if PL at that time was morally and politically incorrect to govern.....the PN also didn't help in getting things right from the beginning also.
For me both parties had their fair share in that time!
Tommy Vella
Feb 7th, 11:18
Just Like Mr Spiteri's article yesterday. If the Nationalists do wrong they do wrong, but if Labour does something wrong, then it's due to the Nationalists' behaviour.