Mela Tonio issa sar Kummissarju Ewropew u s-Saħħa għandha prominenza kbira fil-portfoll tiegħu. Id-dagħdiha u skambju ta’ kliem bejn elementi liberali u konservattivi laħqet il-quċċata tal-attiża nhar l-interrogatorju parlamentari tal-kummissarju deżinjat sabiex ftit wara waqqhet fuq fommha meta għadda mill-eżami tal-vot. Tħallu lil ħadd jitnejjek bikom. Il-proċess ta’ skrutinju innifsu kien neċessarju u leġittimu – biss biss a bażi tal-pożizzjonijiet li kien ħa Tonio Borg meta kien għadu politiku f’Malta. Jekk wieħed jinsa għal mument l-ammont kbir ta’ informazzjoni bażwija li iddawret dwar il-konservatiżmu Malti xorta waħda jifdallu ħafna fuq x’hiex jagħrbel dwar Tonio Borg u l-potenzjal tiegħu.
Tonio jirrapreżenta element politiku importanti fil-qofol Malti. Huwa element politiku li inbena tul iż-żmien reazzjonarju demokristjan waqt il-perijodu tal-gvern soċjalista fis-sebgħinijiet. F’dak iż-żmien id-determinazzjoni u viżjoni demokristjana kienet tinvolvi għanijiet ċari li ma jistgħux jiġu sempliċement diminwiti fi kristallizzazzjoni tas-suq ħieles u liberta. Xogħol, ġustizzja, liberta u ftit wara solidarjeta ma kienux għadhom saru il-munita dgħajfa jew “catchwords” li drajna bihom illum. Kienu sisien sodi għal pjan soċjali ġdid wara l-falliment tas-soċjaliżmu a-la-carte Mintoffjan. Kellha tkun soċjeta illi wieħed iħossu kburi li jifforma parti minnha u li jista jaspira għal (kwalita ta) ħajja aħjar.
Tonio kellu sehem f’dak il-moviment. Dak il-moviment wasal biex għaraf ir-rieda (u l-bżonn) ta’ sħubija fil-proġett Ewropew u kien parti fondamentali (iżda mhux unika) sabiex din il-ħolma isseħħ. Post Malta fl-Ewropa, ma’ l-Ewropej. Ma kienx hemm dubju. Issa u mhux imbagħad. Fuq dak ma kienx hemm dubju lanqas. Imma l-ġgant tal-libertajiet qisu tnikker u ddewwed u mal-ewwel ħjiel ta’ diskors usa’, mal-ewwel bżonn ta’ elaborazzjoni tal-għanijiet soċjali sabiex il-“just society” tolqot iktar nies u drittijiet – qisu bħal donnu beża. U kellna l-ewwel trasformazzjoni. Minn ġo Malta imsieħba fl-Ewropa żammejna sod ma “tradizzjonijiet” u “valuri” Maltin mingħajr ma azzardajna inħarsu jekk kellhomx bżonn xi aġġornament.
Il-partit li jridha li xpruna il-poplu fl-Ewropa sar l-istess wieħed li tella barrieri u ħitan biex mhux l-Ewropa kollha tidħol għax mhux kollox jgħodd. Għalhekk Tonio ma ħeliex wisq ħin qabel ma beda jikkwota trattati u eċċezzjonijiet. “Iva” stħajjiltu jgħidilhom, “ħaddanna l-Ewropa imma l-ewwel u qabel kollox inħaddnu l-prinċipji tagħna… erm tiegħi”. Hekk qalilhom fil-fatt. Hemm kompetenzi u kompetenzi u mhux kull ma hu fl-Ewropa se jidħol f’Malta. U din kienet tweġġa aktar minn kull metamorfosi li seta’ kien hemm bejn Tonio ta’ Malta għal Tonio ta’ l-Ewropa.
Tweġġa’ għax kienet ammissjoni fil-miftuħ li l-mod ta’ kif il-ġenerazzjoni reazzjonarja tas-sebgħinijiet qiegħdin jiffaċċaw il-pass li jmiss huwa wieħed difensiv u magħluq. Malta tagħna u timxi bil-pass li rridu aħna. Ma hemmx diskussjoni. Ma hemmx ftuħ għal utopja ta’ djalogu u sinteżi ta’ ideat. Tiftakruha l-Ewropa ta’ Kajjin u Abel? Kajjin u Abel ilhom li telqu… imma minflokhom għandna l-Ewropa ta’ Malta u l-Ewropa l-oħra.
Tonio komdu jiffirma li se joqgħod għal li jgħidulu – anki jekk b’xi mod tmur kontra l-kuxjenza u valuri tiegħu stess. Kellu jiffirma inkella kien jibqagħlu dubju jgħadduħx fil-klabb tal-Ewropej. Eddie Fenech Adami – missier id-demokristjani reazzjonarji tat-tmeninijiet qallu li kieku ma kienx jiffirma. Kien ikun iktar konsistenti Eddie – għallinqas hekk naħsbu aħna. Għax Tonio b’għemilu u b’ħidmietu baqa jsaħħaħ l-inkwiet li għandna. Li verament għandna żewġ “Ewropa” – dik tal-Maltin u dik li Tonio tant ħabrek biex daħal fiha issa.
I have already written about the imagery surrounding Mintoff or rather the cult of Mintoff. From Saviour to Father of the Nation the persona is aggrandised as far as is superhumanly possible. Today’s Times includes an article by Joseph Vella Bonnici (My time under Dom Mintoff). Even if we dwell for a moment on the psychological implications of the title – “under” Mintoff – we find the implication of submission and subjugation. Our history books are replete with stories of Malta having been under the hold of this people or another- amazingly, no matter how independent, republican or free we may have become there are segments of the population who will speak of having lived “under” Mintoff. They reign, our leaders do you know.
Title psychology aside, Vella Bonnici’s article goes along very much in the vein of a militant Mintoffian – no harm there (I have been warned off picking on “mourners” as though questioning their historical revisionism is some form of disrespect). What really struck me is his concluding aphorism, straight off the mouth of an old friend of his:
A close friend of his once warned me that “Mintoff is like the sun. He is best seen from afar; if one gets too close there is a risk of getting burnt”.
Really? Mintoff is like the sun now? Comparisons to Le Roi Soleil and his famous “Etat c’est moi” would be facile – easy picking right? My reflection would be a little deeper – and is a direct consequence of the friend’s aphorism that fits so nicely with all that is being said and done about the Mintoff cult.
For you see Mr Vella Bonnici, it is a known fact that when you stare at the sun for too long (no matter how near or far) there is only one consequence that is inevitable (oh the beautiful word)… you tend to go blind.
The blind followers of the sun king… now that’s a new one I hadn’t heard before.
Don’t try to hard to think, don’t think at all
I’m not the only one,
Staring at the sun.
Afraid of what you’d find
If you took a look inside
I’m not just deaf and dumb
Staring at the sun
Not the only one
Who’s happy to go blind
Ma jtikx li terġa tikteb dwaru. Mhux għalissa għallinqas. Mhux filwaqt li kull min kapaċi iħażżeż żewġ linji għaddej jara’ kif jagħmel iżid jgħid tiegħu dwar il-perit. Imma jien proprja mhux fuq il-perit xtaqt nitkellem. Xtaqt nitkellem dwar l-idoli u dwar min jgħożżhom. Xtaqt nitfa’ il-lenti m’għajnejja bħal ma għamlu Galilew u Koperniku u niskopri dan l-univers ieħor fejn nipprova nifhem għaliex għal bosta nies id-dinja għada ddur mal-perit, l-univers beda mal-perit u li forsi anki l-amerikani ma kienux jaslu bi Curiosity fuq Marte li kieku ma kienx għal kbir Duminku.
Jista’ jkun li mhux hekk ta’. Jista’ jagħti l-każ li wara kollox din hija bissa karikatura li tinħoloq mill-ilsna ħżiena u mill-peċluqa tar-raħal li ma xtaqux ġid lill-kbir perit (il-Mulej jagħtih il-mistrieħ ta’ dejjem avolja hu lill-Mulej ma tantx tah wiċċ). Imma xi ftit suspett għandi. Suspett li l-moviment popolari bħalissa iqarreb iktar lejn il-beatifikazzjoni tal-perit, iva bħalissa hemm mewġa lesta biex issaħħaħ mit li kien ilu magħna u li issa sabet ix-xoqqa f’moxtha. Dan u l-waqt tal-metamorfosi tal-bniedem li issa ser isir divinita’ assoluta u infallibbli.
Ikun hemm postilli, caveats u asteriski li jżidu xi ħsieb żgħir dwar difetti jew żbalji kommessi mill-protoidolu iżda dawn ikunu biss makkjetti żgħar li jkomplu isaħħu l-immaġini totali tal-ġgant popolari. Bħat-tapit Persjan li jrid bilfors ikollu difett biex ma jieħux għalih il-Ħallieq (li Hu biss Hu perfett) hekk biss jissemmew l-għeltijiet f’personalita li kull ma jmur tibda tikber grazzi għal narrativa popolari għaġġelija. Aħna kollha orfni issa. Hekk qalilna l-aspiranti Mintoff. Le xbin. Jien ma jien orfni ta’ ħadd. Dan bħall-Amerikani li l-għada ta’ 9/11 qalulna li We are all Americans now. Tiġrix. Missieri ħaj għadu, u ommi ukoll, għal grazzja tal-Mulej Alla.
Naf nidħol fiż-żifna ukoll u nfakkar lill-Mintoff Aspiranti li ommi kienet tgħallem fl-iskejjel li kienu se jingħalqu minħabba l-wirt tal-politika tal-idolu tiegħu. Naf ngħidlu li missieri kien wisq għal qalbu jaħdem ma ditta Ingliża sakemm ma għoġbux ikeċċihom il-ġgant ta’ Malta. Jien? Orfni ta’ dak? Ħożż fl-ilma. Imma nixtieq għal ftit inwarrab l-għamad taċ-ċirkostanza u nipprova nifhem għalfejn għal xi nies il-perit qisu sar parti integra mit-trinita’. Qaltilhom waħda anzjana lil tat-Times (tal-Black Monday biex niftehmu) li għaliha l-ewwel jiġi il-Mulej imbagħad wara jiġi Mintoff. Dik hi.
Mhux dak biss. Trid tara l-lessiku. Jitkellmu dwar “twemmin” u “fidi”. Iva mhux qed niċċajta. Bħala student tal-politika naf forsi nindikalek il-valuri li fuqhom jissejjes il-Mintoffjaniżmu. Naf nindikalek in-nazzjonaliżmu sfrenat imħawwar b’imħabba għal poplu u fuq kollox għall-ħaddiem u għal dak l-inqas privileġġjat. Għaldaqshekk faċli. Teħodlu ritratt ċar lill-Mintoffjaniżmu – il-politika fuq il-karta ċara. Ta’ daqshekk biss lest ninża l-kappell (kieku kont liebes wieħed) u nsellem lill-proto-soċjalist li beda biex ħaddan politika tal-ħaddemin kif jgħid l-innu.
Pero. U dejjem ikolli pero. Meta nara il-firxa ta’ dak li sar u dak li għamel ma nasalx biex inwaħħad il-ħsieb mat-twettiq. Ma niġġustifikax l-idoliżżar. Għax m’aħniex nitkellmu fuq Ġgant Mondjali. Iva nasal biex ninfoska lil dawk ta’ madwari li lesti joqtlu biex ifakkruk li m’għandix monopolju fuq is-sewwa oġġettiv. Fl-immaġni filosofika bosta drabi rajna lill-Missier Etern impinġi bħala perit kożmiku. Ma nistax naraha taħdem bil-kontra.
L-ewwel bużillis li insiblu lill-perit hija dik tal-pożizzjoni tiegħu fl-istorja – l-istess storja li għad tiġġudikah. Jien insejħilha l-inevitabiltà. Fil-qosor nemmen li dak kollu li sar fi żmien Mintoff kien isir xorta għax kien inevitabbli. Irritanti ħafna bħala ħsieb imma jekk ngħidlek li Malta fl-1945 kienet gorboġ ġebel li qed tiffaċċja perijodu ta’ rikostruzzjoni (bħall-bqija ta’ l-Ewropa) tgħdili giddieb?
U jekk ngħidlek li kif jixhed b’għemilu Boffa ir-riforma tas-sistema soċjali kienet diġa bdiet tissawwar qabel ma l-Perit ħa over tajjarni giddieb? Jekk ngħidlek li bi flus ir-rikostruzzjoni u l-Għajnuna Marshall kien hemm biex nibnu skejjel u infrastrutturi tgħidli li qed ngħawweġ il-fatti? Jekk ngħidlek li l-universita b’xejn inbdiet fl-1970 taħt Borg Olivier tipprova għallinqas tgiddibni bil-provi u mhux bit-tgħajjir? Jekk ngħidlek li l-vot għan-nisa kien inevitabbli fi żmien it-twelid tal-familja atomika – kontx Bombay jew il-Belt – se tgħidli li far fetched? Jekk ngħidlek li l-istorja qatt ma hi se tgħidilna jekk stajniex morna aħjar b’ekonomija differenti fis-sebgħinijiet u mhux waħda immirata għall-illużjoni tal-awtosuffiċjenza se tmerini?
Ma nafx. “Allura”, nistħajlek tgħidli, “Ja ġifa, Mintoff għalxejn ma kien tajjeb?”. Le ħabib. Tqiegħedx kliem f-ħalqi. Meta qiegħdt il-ħġieġa m’għajnejja ammirajt il-kariżma tal-bniedem. Ammirajt ir-rieda tiegħu u n-nuqqas ta’ biża. Fl-utopja Mintoffjana ammirajt d-dinja aċċessibbli għal kullħadd mingħajr biża u mingħajr dipendenza fuq ħaddieħor. Dak ammirajtu. Ammirajt il-fatt li bħal Obama kien jaf iwassal ħsibijietu lill-parti tal-poplu li l-iktar xtaqu jisma (u le, m’hix oratorija għal kullħadd – inqas intelliġenti, imma min qal li trid tkun intelliġenti biex tkun effettiv?). Għallinqas ma kienx jitnejjek bin-nies bħall-politikanti ta’ llum. Kien jgħidlek x’irid u kif iridu.
Mintoff miegħi jiżloq fit-twettiq. Dak l-entużjażmu, dik ir-retorika u fuq kollox dak il-patt imsawwar mad-dgħajjef u l-ħaddiem. Qaluli trid taraha mill-perspettiva ta’ min ħajtu inbidlet. Jiġifieri xiex? B’għajnejn dawk li bħal eluf oħra madwar il-punent gawdew mir-rivoluzzjoni edukattiva ta’ wara l-gewrra? Sewwa wisq. Iva importanti ħafna din. Tfal sa’ sittax il-sena jistudjaw u jitgħallmu. Daqshekk ħafja fit-triq jew fuq l-Għajn ta’ San Bastjan. U x’iktar? Ix-xogħol? Id-domanda tiegħi hi fejn waqfu l-aspirazzjonijiet tal-perit (u magħhom tal-pajjiż)?
Ma ħoloqx ħolma amerikana – fejn min hu tajjeb jirnexxi u min hu ħażin jaqa’ u jerġa jibda. Le. kien hemm mument fejn waqaf u tilef il-boxxla. Industrija magħżula skond il-bżonn u ħsieb ta’ l-elit soċjalista. Edukazzjoni post-sekondarja imfarrka u sakrifikata fuq l-altar tal-għira lejn elit ieħor tal-passat. Allura x’sewa li toħroġ il-ħafja mit-triq sur Perit jekk imbagħad ma jistgħux jaspiraw biex jikbru u jsibu oriżżonti ġodda sakemm mhux sanzjonati mill-burdati tal-Maċina?
Għalhekk forsi jien ma nifhimx u ma tinżillix din l-idolatrija kurrenti li hawn madwar l-immaġni tal-perit. Fil-verita tiegħi għandi miżien u bih inkejjel il-ħolm u t-twettiq ta’ dak li qed jissejjaħ Missier u Salvatur. Issa apparti li din tal-Missier u Salvatur ma tixraqx fil-lessiku tagħna u hija iktar idonea f’xi kultura tal-Korea ta’ Fuq per eżempju. Imma il-miżien tiegħi jibqa dejjem b’effett aħħari nieqes. Bl-ingliż kieku ngħidu short changed. Dak il-ħafna promessi, dak il-ħafna ħolm u ideal ma ssawrux fl-aħħar.
Forsi lanqas Mintoff stess ma kien kuntent. Naf ngħidlek li wisq huwa probabbli li anki hu ddarras b’dawk li spiċċa imdawwar bihom. Xi Lorry Sant (idolu ieħor f’xi inħawi) li għalaq il-ħsibijiet grandjużi u l-aspirazzjonijiet sovrumani tal-perit f’morsa fallibbli ta’ soċjaliżmu a la carte. Il-pjanijiet grandjużi sabu ħajt fallibbli tal-korruzzjoni umana, tas-sakra tal-poter, tal-abbuż tal-poter u tal-eżaltazzjoni tal-massa injuranta li ma fehmitx ir-responsabilta’ li kienet iġġib magħħa l-emanċipazzjoni Mintoffjana fl-istat teoretiku tagħha. Kien jgħidilhom il-perit li kien ser ikollhom jagħmlu sagrifiċċi biex iwettqu dak li xtaqu. Forsi ma fehmuħx u forsi wara ftit xeba’ jipprova jikkonvinċihom.
Qaluli li lejn l-aħħar ta’ żmienu bħala Prim Ministru kien xeba u spiċċa jgħix Ħal Tarxien imdawwar ma xi ftit ħbieb u jgħum kuljum St Peter’s Pool. Qaluli li kien qata qalbu jissielet mal-għedewwa ta’ ġewwa ħafna qabel ma qata’ qalbu jissielet ma dawk ta’ barra. Kullħadd jixba u jgħeja jitqabad mal-fallibilità umana. Hawn min jitlifa’ mod u min ieħor. Qaluli ukoll li l-aħħar att kbir ta’ Mintoff (minbarra l-1998) kien meta dilek lil Karmenu biż-żejt tas-suċċessur. Qaluli li kieku ma għamilx hekk appik kien ikollna Sant ieħor Prim Ministru. Kien jagħmel rebus, dak, bl-inevitabiltà.
Ma nafx jekk dak li qaluli hix storja apokrifa. Li naf hu li l-personalita kumplessa li hija Dom Mintoff ma ħaqqiex status ta’ idolu. Ma ngħidx hekk b’disprezz jew b’rabja jew b’xi spirtu vindikattiv ta’ min beda ħajtu politika fuq il-qasam l-ieħor. Ngħid hekk għax l-istatus ta’ idolu huwa biss frott ta’ eżaġerazzjoni, karikaturi, iperbole u iva ta miti u emozzjonijiet. Hemm bżonn li l-figura ta’ Mintoff titneżża minn dan il-velu idolatra.
Imbagħad forsi iva, imbagħad l-istorja taf tiġġudikah.
La verité si je mens.
Nota: Qabel ma jieħu għalih xi iblaħ, l-immaġini li takkumpanja din il-bloggata hija ispirata mit-t-shirt famużissimu li kien iħobb jilbes il-kantant tal-Guns’N’Roses Axl Rose. Il-wiċċ fuq dak it-t-shirt ma kienx ta’ Mintoff. Kien tas-Salvatur.
You must be familiar with that jar of delicious liquid goo that is Marmite, or at least with its more popular beefy cousin – Bovril. Marmite’s ubiquitous presence on grocer’s shelves has divided the general public into two distinct categories that eventually became the slogan of this yeast-based product: You either love it or you hate it. The Marmite/Bovril effect is just that – spread a little of either the beef extract or its vegetarian alter ego on a bit of bread and offer it to an innocent newbie and then just watch. You will either get a an expression of finger-licking glee or a glare of absolute disgust verging on the nauseous. That’s them – the icky spreads and their effect. Both Bovril and Marmite became institutions. A quick fix in hard up times and an absolute necessity in the “economic” pre- and post- war kitchens. They ARE still institutions. Whether you love them or you hate them.
The death of Dom Mintoff brought back to the surface the Marmite effect among the Maltese. Mintoff, like Marmite, was either loved or hated. For a brief period even his most intimate of “lovers” found time to despise him when he chose to bring down a government – single handedly. I will forever remember the litany of expletives mouthed by a taxi driver in Paceville right beneath the window where I was going through my early morning revision of Criminal procedure back in 1998. This was no Mintoff-hating nationalist – this was a tattoed Mintoffian through and through – wishing that the worst of the worst would happen to the short, pipe-smoking politician following his apparent betrayal of the Socialist ideal.
Yes. I said Mintoffian. That’s because Mintoff is a large enough figure to inspire an -ism. It is a wide -ism based on a very Mintoffian cocktail of socialism and nationalism. It is a battle begun from the benches of Boffa’s government transformed into a mission that ran on slogans such as “Malta l-ewwel u qabel kollox” and “Min mhux maghna kontra taghna”. It is formed over the span of more than half a century and covers measures or interventions within a national economy supposedly intended for the benefit of the worker and the betterment of the less better off. This was no “middle class” aspiration – this was a politic that is seeded in colonial times and set out with all the intention to improve the state of the Maltese.
The whirlwind tour from the late 30’s to the mid-90s will be dissected, analysed, written and re-written. But the Mintoff effect is the same as the Marmite effect – you love him or you hate him. There are no half measures. The myth is not born today but it is definitely about to go viral. There is a party-in-waiting in Opposition that is gunning to return Mintoff cabinet members to government – it’s not exactly history that we are speaking about. Mintoffianism lives. Mintoffianism is alive in articles in last Sunday’s papers outlining how Malta can still renegotiate its deal with the EU. Mintoffianism still pulls the emotional strings of a large part of the population whose lexicon is stuck on the idea of “30 years of hurt”, on “the privileged elite vs the rest” and the new aspiration of “an open middle class”.
Some, like me, cannot get themselves to appreciate Mintoff. No matter how hard we can try to see the aspirations of the young Dom we always hit that ugly barrier come his “maturity”. Emancipation for others meant “free education” but the socialist scythe of the Mintoffian brand of politics also meant the destruction of too much aspiration. It meant continued education by godfather and the shutting down of the creative arts. It meant expropriation and nationalisation within the framework of an ever dwindling package of legal fundamental rights. More than the notorious age of violence remains the emptiness in an age when the law amounted to nothing much. The individual had no rights because the constitutional court was kept in abeyance and Malta failed to subscribe to the European Convention of Fundamental Rights.
It’s all relative some will say. Some will remain ever grateful to this tub of marmite that pulled them out of “poverty” and “gave” their sons a job and “gave” them a roof in a housing estate. Free education (with streaming first removed then reintroduced) meant more students until the age of 16. Then they would move on to what? Choice, hope and potential were all sacrificed on the all equalling altar of socialist balance. You cannot appreciate that kind of future. The hot air that was the socialist revolution petered out as would any system that attempts to dehumanise its people. Without basic rights and the possibility of expression the socialist dream fell flat on its face and was caught in its own lie. For all the talk of being on the side of the worker and on the side of the poor, the end legacy of Mintoffianism was a nation on its knees with frozen wages, nationalised dinosaur industries and an inability to contemplate the idea of meritocracy and competition. Malta’s treasury box might have been full but potential wise it was running on empty.
Yes, I am of the generation that believed the dream that came next. Our cup of Bovril was the dream of Work, Justice and Liberty of the later eighties. Comparisons are just as odious as adulations but this was our cup half full. Somewhere in this morass of political dwarves posing as giants we also were entitled to a dream. Between the campanilistic propaganda of the eighties and the mass marketing of the naughties we had an interlude of the politics that we hoped would come. Ironically Mintoff had a hand in that too and he inadvertently righted our path towards the Common Market of opportunity. Our dream too has had to subside and submit to the politics of mediocrity that have replaced the value-driven methods of Boffa’s 50s or Fenech Adami’s early 90s.
Mintoffianism is alive but Mintoff the man is dead. They tell me he was not a believer so there is no one to commend his soul to. His memory and his heritage will continue to be debated and discussed.
Until now we only have one objective certainty… Mintoff you either love him or you hate him. In the island of Saints and Fireworks there could hardly be more of a testament that this is truly one of its sons.
Sitting around a table with a group of people reminescing times past is an experience that we have all gone through some time or another. I have fond memories of a parapett in Gozo that in its heyday served as a stopping point for many an ambler enjoying the summery nights of Marsalforn. Stories, rumours and recollections are part of any social fabric and their role is highlighted on a rock of a few kilometres squared inhabited by nigh half a million souls.
Among the stories that I picked up in my childhood I was always most fascinated by the accounts of the deeds and misdeeds of Mintoff and Mintoffianism. In post-war lore I believe you could equate the standard of this kind of story with that of the deeds of Arthur and his knights or those of Robin Hood and his merry band. Obviously there was less myth and much more fact in the accounts of Mintoffian errantry or socialist theft in the name of the poor, but the personal timbre and impression given by whoever took the baton of chief raconteur was just as manifest as it was inevitable.
Mintoff’s effect on the social, political and even physical lanscape of these islands is an indelible mark left by a trailblazing meteor that rose from the ashes of war torn Malta, blazed through the puberty of a nation in search of an identity and then erratically stuttered to a shaky stop in its twilight years. The Mintoffian stamp on Maltese society spans six decades and can hardly be reduced to a one hour overview.
Every step from the post-war rise within (and without) the ranks of Labour to the epic battles with the powers colonial and ecclesiastic would require contextual analysis based on a multidimensional perspective of the politician and his deeds. It is not a sense of partisan justice that underlies this requirement for rigorous analysis but a the historical paradigms of contextuality and clarity – as far as they could possibly be achieved.
Falkun Films have pulled off a magnificent feat of marketing by managing to tap into the vein of curious controversy that is the main selling point of any current affairs item in Malta. “Dear Dom” has hit the airwaves and the opinion columns in full force and the Maltese buzz is out doing what it does best – a concoction of summary exectutions, intransigent condemnations and unreserved plaudits delivered by a mixture of consenting viewers and disdained abstainers alike. In doing so, Falkun Films and Pierre Ellul proved one important point even before the cinema tickets were sold: Dom Mintoff is still hot stuff.
I wanted to reserve my judgement to when I witnessed what the movie had to offer with my own eyes and I finally got to see the film on Easter Sunday. A fitting date, many would opine, to see the return of the saviour before the eyes of his people. Waiting in the ante-chamber at the cinemas someone remarked that they could not fathom why some would choose not to watch the movie… “At least you could learn something”. That, I think is one of the main points here. Is “Dear Dom” a documentary? Does it have any educational value?
Or was “Dear Dom” after all the latest in a long line of attempts at destroying the hero-factor that the name Mintoff still carries on? Was the man worshipped by our Leader of Opposition (by his own admission) being dismantled in a new medium of local propaganda?
You do not need to sit through the full hour of Dear Dom to notice that there is nothing documentary-like about the movie. The monotonous narration reads like a long j’accuse from the beginning to an end (not this J’accuse). Intentions, motives and nefarious plans are imputed without missing a beat. What is missing is the facts that back the assertions. Sure, many sitting in the theatre – especially those who have brushed up their history lessons – would know the background to the interdett, the obsession with integration, the swing to separation from the UK, the control economy, the battle with the church and more.
I did ask myself however – what would someone who had never heard of Mintoff and his story make of this film? Not much I’m afraid. The film depends on a priori knowledge and relies strongly on preconceptions. It taps into the narrative that has been woven in the parapetti, the pjazez and the kitchens of the nation. You enter the cinema armed with your idea of Mintoff and walk out nodding or shaking your head – not because you have been given a theory based on historical investigation but because the film has touched upon those nerves that have been lying dormant for a while and you’ve risen to the provocation.
If you have none of those preconceptions you are probably still wondering who the interviewees are, you are probably asking more questions about the relationship between Mintoff and the Church, between Mintoff and the English, between Mintoff and the Nationalist party. You’re probably dying to find out what makes the torch of Mintoffianism still burn to this day and why his many followers are reluctant to shed his heritage.
The magnificent and purposely charged typographic shifts from one scene to the next will have done little to satisfy your justifiable curiousity and the motley band of interviewees might only have served to give you a tiny fraction of the impact of Dom on Maltese lives and Maltese life. Artistically I would dare say that Dear Dom is an emotionally charged “skizz” or “makkjetta“. In sharp contrast to the documentary portrait that one expects but that it is not, “Dear Dom” is a cross between a caricature, a parody and a picassian esquisse that has evident limits in both time and space.
Which is why J’accuse firmly believes that the film is a must watch. It is a must watch because we need this kind of provocation. It is a must watch because if it is true that we shy away from controversy and from dealing with our heroes (maybe thanks to the censors in our head) then any start is a good start. It is a must watch because notwithstanding the shortcomings and failings on a historical level therein lies a wealth of visual retro-porn that is awaiting the history fetishist.
I must admit that I sighed with that twisted sense of oxymoronic nostalgia for an era that I hope will never return when I saw the rows of Sanga (or was it Soldini) shoes in a factory. The short tourism ads and clips that were sampled included such wonders as the old Hilton and Gozo’s Hotel Calypso. The library of reels picturing Mintoff in various negotiating moments are also a jewel that should be preserved – hopefully for a deeper, longer and more purposive analysis that is waiting to be made.
Dear Dom is not and could never be the only source of the controversy that has dominated the scene over the Easter break. Yana Mintoff will secretly see the movie as a godsend as it has given her some popularity (notoriety?) points and drawn the media to an otherwise bland latecoming hopeful to the political scene. The naysayers who wouldn’t watch the film (and still judged it) proved that the controversy has nothing to do with any movie or its content but simply with the fact (and probably the fear) that the man elevated to hero status was being brought back into the limelight. The fact remains – Mintoff and all things Mintoffian is a recipe for controversy… even in 2012.
A recently uploaded episode of “kwartakollox” on youtube dealt with Mintoff and seemed to have kicked off on a much better track than the Dear Dom movie – ironically it took a quarter of the time. Dear Dom got much more attention than a one hour edited series of clips and photos with a voiceover plus some great typography deserved. Had it not made it to the cinemas and had there not been any well timed marketing leading to controversy it would not have caused such a stir among those who might have got down to watching it.
Rather than binning Dear Dom we can only hope that more effort is put into this kind of production. More effort could bring more perspectives, more angles and more history being put under the lens. Our young nation needs this kind of effort. So do the artists and historians who have for too long been operating under a system of self-imposed censorship.
And after that? Well, after that… the world goes on.
A happy freedom day holiday to y’all on the island. Why the photo you ask? Well no disrespect and all but this geezer is everything and all about Freedom Day in 2011. He was there on the original freedom day when Malta celebrated the non-renewal of a contract by its wise and sage leader. He stood behind and smiled as il-perit climbed what must be Malta’s ugliest monument ever and lit the torch of freedom.
He probably was smiling at home in Tripoli or some other Libyan palace when a few years later il-perit would bargain a constitutional PLPN entente of reform – adjusting parliamentary representation in exchange for the neutrality clause.
He must have smiled again when il-perit’s Malta kow-towed to most of his wishes in all forms of subservient arse-licking including most importantly the early warning system for any menaces from the north by Mintoff’s follower (sic – successor).
God knows if he was smiling yesterday from afar as the progressive, modernist leader and purveyor of European values told the assembled crowd of nostalgics that “we won’t take sides”.
Freedom? What freedom?
Chained by PLPN yellow politics? That’s Freedom xejn. (no freedom).
