A few weeks ago, the characteristic tranquillity of the peace-loving country of Norway was shattered by two incidents of violence perpetuated by the same man within a few hours of each other for rather spurious fundamentalist motives that have, however, reared their ugly head in several European countries including Malta.
The dignity with which the Labour Norwegian Prime Minister and the Norwegian people reacted to this obnoxious incident should serve as an example to all politicians faced with such difficult circumstances.
More recently, the riots and looting in London and other English cities gave rise to another example of political dignity: Ed Miliband, British Labour Party leader and of Opposition Leader, did not hesitate to condemn the riots rather than use them for some short-sighted attempt to score political points against the UK coalition government.
Miliband might not exactly agree with the way British Prime Minister David Cameron explained the real reason why the riots flared so suddenly, or with the way Cameron wants to solve the complicated cultural and social problems that have led to the predicament that his country is facing, but he supported the government in its no nonsense policy in favour of the protection of the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Unfortunately, violence has also had its share – too much of a share in fact – in Malta’s political history of the past 30 years.
There is no doubt that the Labour administrations led by Dom Mintoff used violence to further political ends. This could have surprised some who believed Mintoff’s left-wing ideology spurred from the democratic socialism of the Scandinavian or British type that considers the use of violence as a political tool as an anathema.
Mintoff’s ‘relationship’ with violence during the time he was Prime Minister remains an enigma to this very day.
The recent passing away of Mary Fenech Adami led many to recall the incident when her family residence was attacked by thugs who even physically assaulted her.
That day of shame in 1979 included the arson of the building housing The Times, leading Mintoff to write a half-baked sort of apology to Mabel Strickland that referred to the perpetrators of the violence against her property and her employees as “hotheads”.
However, the Fenech Adamis never got an apology, of any sort. No doubt, many in the Labour Party did not condone what had happened but none then dared express their disapproval in public.
Political observers have not failed to see a connection between the use of violence by the Labour administration with the last of the six ‘points’ – the infamous ‘sitt punti’ – that Mintoff had insisted should be included or catered for in Malta’s 1964 Independence Constitution.
Viewed with hindsight and with current perceptions, the first five points now seem innocuous and reasonable. Not so the sixth, which argued that violence should be justified under certain circumstances.
How Mintoff wanted this ‘principle’ to be included in our Constitution is beyond me. Indeed, although many regimes in different countries have put it into practice – with some still doing it in current times – no country enshrined it in its Constitution.
When Mintoff had the opportunity to amend the Constitution 10 years later, not even the wildest proposals on Constitutional changes that he initially passed on to the then Nationalist opposition included this ‘principle’.
Those wild proposals were patiently whittled down by the PN until there was agreement on the 1974 Constitutional amendments that included the declaration of Malta as a Republic.
The violence ‘principle’ was never written down but was actually applied in practice over and over again by the Mintoffian administration.
Eventually the short-term advantage that the 1971-87 Labour administrations garnered by the use of violence for political ends was far outweighed by the long-term negative effects that the Labour Party suffered – and is still suffering – as a result.
The election of Alfred Sant as Labour leader saw the party distancing itself from the thugs – or hotheads – that had given the party such a bad image and that had for some time become the proverbial tail wagging the dog.
Sant just cut off the gangrenous tail and acted as if it never existed; but this approach did not erase the memories of those who suffered from the violence perpetuated under the perceived protection of the state.
I strongly feel it is about time that Labour does one better: it should publicly declare that it rejects the use of violence as a political tool; and apologise without any ambiguity or reservations for its use in the past, and specifically to all those who were victims of this violence.
I do not suspect that the current Labour leadership intends to use violence as a political tool but this is not the point. It is still obliged to bring about a nationwide closure of the issue.
When we are still some 20 months away from the general election, this is the time for Joseph Muscat to take the plunge and do it.
micfal@maltanet.net