As ideologies converge towards an ever-murkier political centre, two Communist Party of Malta spokesmen insist their credo is still alive and kicking. Bertrand Borg reports.
When the Berlin Wall’s first fissures began to be ripped open in November 1989, analysts scrambled to announce the fall of the ideology that had built it.
There’s very little difference between the two parties. Both are servile parties, serving a capitalist agenda
And as East Germans smashed the hated bricks, civilians across eastern Europe rose up against the communist regimes that had swallowed up their political systems.
But over 20 years later, two leading members of the Communist Party of Malta argue that reports of communism’s death are, at the very least, greatly exaggerated.
“Communist parties form part of the government in Latvia, Cyprus and Denmark; the communist party is the third-largest party in Greece; there are communist representatives within the European Parliament,” said CPM member David Pisani.
Together with CPM Secretary Victor de Giovanni, Mr Pisani wrought out an explanation of modern-day communism.
“Marxism is an analysis, nothing more. It’s not a dogma – it’s more a school of thinking. As a communist movement, we speak of creating a more equal and just society.
“Talk of wanting a one-party state is antiquated thinking.”
“Communism,” Mr de Giovanni interjected, “is essentially a form of socialism. We use the word to distinguish it from the left wing’s other strands.”
Malta already has a party devoted to social democratic ideals. What then distinguished the CPM from the Labour Party?
Mr Pisani didn’t blink. “The PL is far too tied to the capitalist agenda. Man must be free and free in his thinking, and capitalism is imperialism’s machine.”
Their Nationalist counterparts were much the same, he added.
“There’s very little difference between the two parties. Both are servile parties, serving a capitalist agenda.”
That agenda was reflected in the PN/PL’s awe of big business and large-scale private property, the two felt.
While clarifying that the CPM had no problem with personal property – “your house, car or money in the bank” – Mr de Giovanni insisted that large-scale property needed to be further regulated.
What was good for business was not necessarily good for the public.
“Look at Midi. Tigne Point, geared entirely towards the maximisation of profits, resulted in a monster project which even government members are now critical of.”
It was too late to do anything about that, but the government was still in time to save Manoel Island, Mr Pisani argued.
“It boils down to a single choice: whether to build it up or give the land back to the people. And this is where the Marxist notion of protecting the common good comes into play. Who do we want to benefit, the profitable few or the living majority?”
Another CPM bugbear is the interpretation of Malta’s neutrality clause. Mr Pisani uses the Libyan conflict – and Malta’s alleged role in facilitating the transfer of prisoners to Gaddafi’s Libya as part of the US’s extraordinary rendition programme, never denied – as a case in point.
“Western imperialist powers had no problem using Gaddafi’s Libya as a place to secretly render and torture prisoners. And our government had no problem helping them do it.
“It’s hypocrisy. The government can’t declare itself against Gaddafi but insist it’s being neutral. Europe tends to toe the American line. If we want to do that, we should be honest and upfront about it.”
Neutrality remained as relevant as ever, Mr de Giovanni insisted. “The Cold War may be over, but we still have superpowers. What else could you call the US or China? And China has become an imperialist power, both militarily and economically.”
Malta is notoriously reluctant to absorb fringe perspectives into the political mainstream. The political coyness was down to the country being tied to the Church’s apron strings, Mr de Giovanni felt.
“Look at the Maltese rebellion against French forces [in 1800]. The locals didn’t understand the ideals of the Enlightenment and thought the French were assaulting religion.
“British forces were smarter: they learnt from the French and made a conscious decision to empower Church and make it effectively second-in-command. Although we’re starting to break free, that hegemony still exists and means people are afraid to be radical.”
But was it radical to adhere to an ideology many believed had been served its death knell in 1989?
Mr Pisani scoffed. “Ideologies change. The capitalism of today is very different to that of 30 years ago. So is communism. We don’t speak of a one-party system anymore.”
One-party systems will go down in history for their restriction of civil rights and liberties. Both at pains to denounce their modus operandi, Mr Pisani and Mr de Giovanni nevertheless suggested they needed to be seen within their historic context.
“The Cold War polarised things – fascist dictators were propped up by the west, left-wing ones by the east. Of course it’s not right.
“But remember: it was the US that sparked off the Cold War, sending CIA operatives into Greece. And plenty of killing has been done in capitalism’s name.”
Mr Pisani sighed. “People don’t seem to be interested in historical truth. They just accept caricatures.
“We all know what North Korea is like, but how often is it mentioned that when Korea was split up [in 1954] the Americans installed an authoritarian government in the South, which ruled for decades? Isn’t that a one-party system too?”
As the interview drew to a close, Mr Pisani grew contemplative. “I disagree with capitalism, but even I don’t claim that it’s all bad.”
He flashed a smile. “If people want to lump ‘communism’ into a basket labelled ‘one-party system’, then they’re free to so that. But they can’t claim to be objective.”