What would Dom say?

If Pierre Ellul’s Dear Dom documentary film about Dom Mintoff set out to do one thing, it was to get people talking about it. So on that score at least, it has been a success since young and old have willingly voiced opinions on the subject.

Whether these views have been informed or not, politically motivated or not, rational or not, is, of course, another matter. People will no doubt judge that for themselves.

What is not up for discussion is that Mr Mintoff – despite having departed the political scene 14 years ago in as fierce a firefight as when he entered it five decades earlier – is still a topic very much in demand. Whatever their view of the former prime minister, few Maltese can resist the temptation to lap up scraps of information that become available about him.

It would take a sociologist, perhaps, to analyse why this remains the case. But there are a few obvious reasons.

For starters, the ailing 95-year-old remains one of the most influential figures, and probably the best known Maltese beyond these shores, in the island’s contemporary history. Whether that is for the right reasons or not is immaterial. It’s just a plain fact which causes people to prick their ears at the mere mention of his name.

Two, perhaps more significantly, unlike Eddie Fenech Adami – his great nemesis and arguably antithesis – Mr Mintoff is an utter enigma.

Dr Fenech Adami has always been a case of what you see is what you get, with very clearly stated and enunciated political and social objectives.

Mr Mintoff is the diametric opposite. He took great delight in keeping people guessing during the course of his political career and beyond. The result is that no political leader of this country will ever be better known to the people and yet remain such a mystery – which points to another significant aspect of Mr Mintoff’s multi-faceted character: paradox.

Dear Dom deals with the historical happenings in Mr Mintoff’s life as adequately as can be expected from a 60-minute film. But it is in these two areas – enigma and paradox, which are so vital to the former prime minister’s make-up – that it falls disappointingly short.

It rather depicts Mr Mintoff, stereotypically, as a bit of a hero in his earlier years – showing priceless footage of the former prime minister ably dealing with the British press while he was renegotiating the defence agreement with the UK – who then turned villain as he went on.

Yet this is far too simplistic a view. Mr Mintoff did good things and bad things throughout his political career. It’s just at times they were more, or better, disguised than others.

This is a man who inflicted coarse and incendiary language on the masses and went home to feed on a diet of George Bernard Shaw and Verdi. This is a man who blighted Malta with unsightly structures and yet adores nature and the countryside. This is a man who breathed fire during mass meetings in the early 1980s and yet fully recognised his time was up and that he had to work with senior Nationalist Party figures for a solution. He is the most complex of subjects.

It is most unfortunate that the opinion many people would like to hear, that of Mr Mintoff himself – not so much his view of the film but of all the events he presided over – is the one that will not be heard. That task is now left to others.

However, there are so few left who can offer any true insight and, going by the kind of comments we have seen in recent weeks, it will be some time yet before a rational discussion on the subject can be held. Which is a great shame.

Happy Easter.