Vincent MoranThe Malta Labour Party boycotted the 1964 independence celebrations in Floriana, although a rowdy crowd of its supporters turned up to boo.
But the party was not against independence, according to former Labour minister Vincent Moran. It just wanted much more than was obtained that day.
Dr Moran, 82, and still a practising doctor, was first elected to Parliament in 1962. He was an eyewitness from the Opposition benches in Malta’s last leg to independence.
Independence had been on the 1962 electoral manifestos of both the Labour and Nationalist parties. So, how did it feel to watch then Nationalist Prime Minister George Borg Olivier grab the prize? Wasn’t there a sense of disappointment?
“Yes, I believe there was,” Dr Moran said. “It was logical that it would be Labour, which had such a big and influential role, especially among the working population, which would obtain independence for the country with all the right conditions.”
We cannot say that the religious dispute was not a weight on our shoulders, but the party never backed down
The independence of 1964 came at a low point in Labour’s history. Then party leader Dom Mintoff had fallen out with Archbishop Michael Gonzi, who saw Labour veering towards communism.
Labour campaigned in the 1962 election, and lost, to a background where the Church told voters that voting for Labour was a mortal sin. Mr Mintoff and the party executive were interdicted. The situation lasted until 1969 when peace was finally reached between Labour and the ecclesiastical authorities.
Dr Moran, who joined Labour in 1948 and became a doctor 10 years later, said he and his family all received the Church’s condemnation. That he was a candidate in 1962 did not really make much of a difference.
The Church sanctions applied to them anyway because they were declared Labourites. Among other sanctions, Labour voters were refused absolution, last rites and burial in sacred grounds.
How did they take this condemnation?
“My family was very religious, and they still are to this day. They took it badly, including my father who was also very religious. Yet, they stood their ground and made their position known.”
As for himself, Dr Moran said the Church sanctions did not affect him but he could see it was a burden on his family. It also affected Labour’s influence on the population and naturally, the 1962 electoral result.
So what was the mood in the party then, in the wake of its electoral defeat and the ongoing religious dispute as they watched Dr Borg Oliver move ahead towards independence?
“We cannot say that the religious dispute was not a weight on our shoulders, but the party never backed down. The morale was good because Mintoff pushed on and on. He never tired and kept the morale high.”
Dr Moran, who served as a minister between 1976 and 1987, insisted again and again that the issue was never about religious belief but over the need for a net separation between Church and secular matters.
“Mintoff kept repeating that we are Christians and that Christians we shall remain. We just didn’t want to submit ourselves to what priests had to say on clearly lay issues. We didn’t want to interfere in anything to do with the faith.”
As the new constitution was being drawn up, Mr Mintoff drew up six points that basically dealt with the position of the Church in society. The points covered human rights, civil marriage, religious freedom and naturally a provision prohibiting the Archbishop from declaring it a moral sin to vote for a particular party or person.
These points featured strongly in the referendum campaign on the new constitution drawn up by the Nationalists.
Mintoff said he wanted real independence, one that gave the country the freedom to develop as it wished
“There was uniformity on our [the PN and MLP] approach to independence,” Dr Moran said. “The differences we had with the PN were on issues of principle and on the quality of the independence we wanted.
“Mintoff said he wanted real independence, one that gave the country the freedom to develop as it wished. He insisted on a separation between religion and lay matters, although sometimes it was difficult to make a net difference between what was purely religious and what was purely political.”
But did he think that Labour may have emphasised too much the religious issue and ignored other aspects of the new constitution?
“Mintoff didn’t want a Church that interfered in what were purely secular issues. The Church wanted more influence on lay issues, and we said no that.”
He added: “The difference between us and the PN was that while we did not want Church interference, the PN knew that the religious dispute favoured them politically. They took advantage of that.”
Labour also disagreed with the defence and financial agreements the Dr Borg Olivier government reached with the UK.
“The constitution as negotiated by Borg Olivier was limited; it limited our independence, while we wanted a constitution that brought true freedom. In 1964, the UK still had a very strong and influential position on Malta. One example that comes to mind is that the UK could use Malta as a front should a conflict arise. Our concept of independence was different.”
And yet, today, Labour in government is organising national celebrations to mark half a century of independence.
“The mentality has changed,” Dr Moran said, “as have the country’s needs. The international context has changed and the role of religion in society has changed – everything has changed.”
“At the end of the day,” Dr Moran said, “both the PN and the MLP wanted independence. Our views were uniform. It was only on the quality of that independence that we differentiated. The basis was the same.
“The 1964 independence, with its limitations, was still a tool for Labour to improve upon and to introduce the new concepts that it did in the 1970s. Independence provided the necessary force for the country to progress forward.”
“Whichever way you look at it,” concluded the former Labour minister who once felt the full brunt of a Church censure: “Malta has gained from independence. It was a godsend.”