I was persuaded by my wife to go and watch the film on Dom Mintoff. I did not really want to go for two reasons. First, I had lived through those times, which were not a pleasant experience at all and I did not need a film to tell me about them. I have the personal memories. Second, the man is still alive and I like to watch biographies when the final chapter has been written. People can change. At the end of the film I was left with a rather bitter taste for two reasons. The film reminded me of those bad times and also it was rather moderate about the events that had occurred. I agree with my colleague Francis Zammit Dimech that the film has erred too much on the side of caution and mildness in presenting all that had occurred under the Labour Party/Socialist regime of the time. However, looking back, I also concluded that it would be unfair to put all the blame solely on Mintoff’s shoulders.

There are others that must shoulder responsibility. First there were all his colleagues in the then Cabinet and MLP section of Parliament who have to shoulder collective responsibility for those years of lead. Mintoff alone could have done nothing. There were some individuals who stood up to him and opted to leave rather than ride the gravy train. I am thinking of Joe Micallef Stafrace for one. Had there been more like him, what happened would not have happened. Second, one has to place much of the blame on the Socialist political philosophy, at least the dark red hue of socialism that Mintoff was pushing.

It is well documented in Herbert Ganado’s book that Socialist supporters were notorious for running around pushing music, colours and fists of a very Marxist hue. This is what prompted much reaction from the Church and his political opponents. In fact, the MLP changed the colour of its flag to white and red from red after these early incidents. Socialism also accepted the use of violence to attain political aims. This, the MLP/Socialist Party duly proceeded to put into practice and physically bullied opponents into submission. The ends justified the means and the means included the use of political violence where necessary. Much of this brought the MLP into conflict with the Maltese pre-Conciliar Church which duly used the means then frequently available in pre-Conciliar times – interdiction. For the record, it is documented in Henry Frendo’s book that Dr G. Borg Olivier, leader of the PN, was against the use of this instrument that was used at the time. The fact remains that what happened had happened because of the threatened and actual use of violence and the appeal to Marxist collectivist metaphysic, which was a harbinger of things yet to come.

I have just finished an EU funded study visit in Poland (Krakow). It is obvious that the same socialist philosophy was used there, leading to a similar effect as in Malta. The big casualty was not only democracy but also more importantly, the loss of civil society in the country. There was the State and the individual, but in between these there was no space for anything else. Socialism’s biggest disaster was the loss of the right to associate and form organisations to shield the ordinary citizen and promote collective social causes. Not only that, but there also was a sustained degrading and pulverization of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person. In countries like Poland today (which I highly recommend for a visit), one of the main complaints by the people then was not only the lack of political liberty in general but also the lack of a right to organise and the manifest failure to create the goods which needed eventual proper distributing in society. This produced a situation that has left many economic ill effects still there today. The only real institutional shield that remained against the “red spiders” was the Church, which carried out its duties admirably under the then Cardinals Stefan Wyszynski and Karol Wojtila. The Church in Poland is the real saviour of civil society there.

In Malta we witnessed the same obsession by a party with a big concept of State and a small concept of society. Everything was nationalized (violently – on the lines perhaps of the harassment and attrition policy advocated by the Roman General Fabius Maximus) in the interest of the collective and as a result civil society was manifestly being squeezed out of existence. The same civil society that is today so important in order to create wealth and jobs and motor the economy in general.

So I sincerely hope that the lessons borne out of those not so fine times have now been learned. Labour supporters have to realise that it might have been ok for them to get what they wanted, but it was not so good or easy for others who were perceived as ‘contra’ or even neutral, to attain with difficulty what were their personal, social and political rights. I still remember us students being chased by thugs at university with some students pointing out to the thugs those who were the “socialist” supporters and those who were not. There were then only about 800 of us in all, divided into two, so it was not so difficult to pick on us at all. I am also still waiting for an apology for all this (which the post-conciliar Church on its part has carried out) from a party that seems to be reminiscing rather fondly of the past to an ever-increasing greater and nauseating degree.