In colonial Malta, the award of a Rhodes scholarship to a hostile anti-British student was unlikely to happen. Dom Mintoff, on the basis of his suitability, was granted such a scholarship and proceeded successfully to Oxford, consolidating a strong affinity with the colonial masters. This pro-British sympathy of Mintoff was further nurtured through having an English wife.

Does this imply that Mintoff’s British leanings came at the expense of his love for Malta? Of course not, it probably was much more of a personal conviction that the interests of the Maltese would best be served through having the island submit itself to total integration with Britain. It may be inferred that Mintoff considered tiny Malta unable to survive as an independent state and responsibly govern itself.

This 1950s Mintoffian vision of Malta’s future made the Malta Labour Party follow a political direction that culminated in the 1956 ‘Integration with Britain’ referendum.

During the referendum campaign, the Malta Labour Party proudly waved the Union Jack and Britain was declared as the best destination for Malta.

In terms of total cast referendum votes, Mintoff claimed a victory and duly expected the British to honour their integration pledge. Britain’s change of mind and heart on integration infuriated Mintoff and, overnight, his disposition towards the colonial masters radically changed.

The then opposition Nationalist Party leader, George Borg Olivier was not for integration with Britain but favoured for Malta an evolution to a set-up approaching that of Canada’s dominion status.

However, as independence appeared inevitable, he courageously went for it, achieving a defence agreement and cordial relations with Britain, this under a NATO umbrella. Without delay, he sought membership in what was then known as the Common Market, the precursor of the European Union.

This Borg Olivier set-up and destiny for Malta suddenly vanished when Mintoff ’s Labour Party narrowly won the 1971 election.

The 16 years of Labour government that followed 1971, as expected, constituted a bumpy ride that included five years of a government that enjoyed a majority of parliamentary seats with a minority of electoral votes. The year 1987 was when the accumulated effect of Labour maladministration pushed Malta towards serious civil disorder.

Dom Mintoff being sworn in as prime minister in 1976. Photo: DOIDom Mintoff being sworn in as prime minister in 1976. Photo: DOI

A fatal civil confrontation was avoided, in part due to Mintoff giving a green light to an undertaking that a majority-voted party would be guaranteed a majority of parliamentary seats. The Nationalist Party, led by Eddie Fenech Adami, won the 1987 election by a very narrow margin.

As Malta pulled back from a dangerous precipice it was evident that, in its majority and at heart, the island’s electorate was radically Labour. It was only objective thinkers within the Labour support base, in face of serious misbehavior and evident lack of good governance, that, in 1987, decided to push the party to the opposition benches.

This non-tribal segment of Labour support showed itself ready to act again, in 1998, in face of Alfred Sant’s erratic governance, and, in 2003, when Labour tried to deny EU membership to Malta. Could it be the PN does not win elections but it is only these Labour floaters, when things get really bad, that call on the PN to sort out the mess? Are we doomed to a cyclical pattern of Labour upheaval followed by PN calm?

With a built-in prevalently Labour majority electorate, should Malta be resigned to five more years of Labour havoc?- Arthur Muscat

If this is a correct reading of the situation, how should the PN behave with an election looming? It needs to convincingly distance itself from whiffs of corruption through the adoption of decent electoral candidates. It needs to emphasise support for the rule of law and to a curtailment of the corruptive power and bad influence of notorious individuals and lobby groups.

The PN needs to show that it subscribes to certain principles, for example, it must avoid loose talk about some merit residing in passport sales schemes, it should have avoided supporting legislation against third parties, it must not play the game of promising conflicting ‘benefits’ to a segmented electorate.

The PN’s vision of Malta’s economic viability must not feature dubious quick-fix easy-money gimmicks or an inclination to tolerate a shady governance of vital sectors like finance and construction.

Malta needs a change in government but Malta also desperately needs its Labour Party to seriously reform itself.

This party can and should renew its less than exemplary collective leadership. Mature labourites have to ensure that their party breaks a pattern of tension, confusion and uncertainty always prevalent at the end of its mandates to govern the island.

The collective leadership of the Labour Party abuses and persists in displaying an inability or an unwillingness to decently administer a small island. This errant behaviour is internationally projecting Malta as an almost failed state, provoking repeated admonishments from the EU, the most recent being a call by 635 MEPs for rule of law to prevail in Malta.

With a built-in prevalently Labour majority electorate, should Malta be resigned to five more years of Labour havoc? Has this administration erred enough to provoke objective Labour rebel floaters to interrupt their party’s rule?

Could it be that, in the 1950s, Mintoff was correct to doubt Malta’s ability to responsibly govern itself?

Arthur Muscat, human resources and industrial relations specialist

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.