To some, Maltese political history seems to have only started in 1981. In fact, one must go back to the early 1960s when the voice of Maltese political leaders could be heard in Parliament and the country became independent.

The elections of 1962 and 1966 were held in the shadow of ‘violent’ warnings of the spiritual kind by a Church supported by political parties falling under the so-called ‘Church umbrella’. Violence comes in various forms and shapes but the most compelling and vicious in the case of Catholics is being condemned to hell; losing one’s soul forever.

Victor Camilleri’s remark (March 2) that, in 1981, his newspaper – In-Nazzjon Tagħna – could not make use of the word nazzjon as a result of an anti-democratic and anti-constitutional law introduced by the Labour government need to be addressed.

Camilleri seems to have completely forgotten that, during the previous Nationalist governments of 1962 and 1966, a citizen could not take any Labour newspaper in government buildings. Those who did would have been dismissed. If a known Labour sympathiser passed away, the Nationalist government used to allow that person – a Maltese citizen – to be buried in ‘unconsecrated land’. All those known to be Labourites could not work whether with the government or in the private sector.

Every political party knew that the electoral system could yield a perverse result

So, before complaining about the withholding of the word nazzjon, how about sparing a thought for those citizens who were treated as animals and interdicted and this with the blessing of all political parties within the so-called “Umbrella Brotherhood”?

The first electoral gerrymandering took place before the 1971 election by the then Nationalist Party when five districts were allocated six MPs instead of the normal five. Thus, the electoral rules were changed in a way that benefited the PN.

The five districts that were given the extra seats were the second, third, seventh, eighth and ninth in the hope that this will give an advantage to the party in government.

As it happened, in the fifth district the number of votes obtained by each party were as follows: Labour 8,151 votes and the PN 8,130 votes. Just a difference of 21 votes.

It resulted that, on one particular count, only three votes separated the contestants. If these three votes had gone to a PN candidate, then the Nationalist Party would have won the elections with a difference of 5,000 votes.

Therefore, every political party knew that our electoral system could yield a perverse result.

The first instance of gerrymandering in terms of how the boundaries were set occurred in the watch of the PN and, then, in the 1971 election, held under a Nationalist government. This brought to light in a very clear way the fact that the system was faulty and that a perverse result can come about.

But the irony of it all was that three political figures in the Nationalist government, namely Carmelo Caruana, Guido de Marco and Ċensu Tabone, demanded three recounts on the fifth district.

Thus, it was quite clear that the PN was ready to government even within a perverse result framework. So, please, do write our political history as it really happened.

Regarding Lino Spiteri, a friend and a colleague, I would like to confirm his views on past events.

Dom Mintoff had no equal in the Labour Party. He had absolute control. All of us knew that if he really wanted to hold immediate elections he would have made this happen.

None of us were pleased with the perverse electoral result but it was according to the Constitution.

That Constitution was drafted and approved by the Nationalist government and its allies: the Ganado, Strickland and Pellegrini political parties.

It should be noted that Mintoff had still decided to let the PN retain its seats in Parliament even if parliamentary rules state that one loses one’s seat if one stays away from the House for three months.

Mintoff wanted democracy in the country. He fought for it and achieved it.

One also notes that when the Opposition returned to Parliament there were no casual elections.

Spiteri was again right when he said that Mintoff really started dealing with the Opposition when he was a backbencher.

It was a Labour government that proposed electoral changes and passed them through Parliament.

In conclusion, if one really wants to write history as it truly happened, one should read past newspapers to take note of when trouble started. The political strikes and exaggerated £9 weekly pay increase, the call for civil disobedience, the violent tit-for-tat incidents occurrences... Under which Opposition leadership watch had these started?

As citizens, we should strive for a better Malta where we all can live together in harmony even if holding different views. This is what the citizens want and not useless and banal bickering. Such behaviour does not give credit to our leaders.

Along the years, this country registered progress to the benefit of one and all. Let us all strive to remain on this track.