The man who would be king
After watching a press screening of Dear Dom, the documentary produced by Pierre Ellul, my one recurring thought was, how did a man who was so well-spoken and so well-dressed at the beginnning of his political career, turn into the shouting, gesticulating dictator-like figure wearing a huge buckle and flannel shirts towards the end of the film?
In the footage taken from the 1950s, Mintoff, with his sharp suits, his pipe and his mischievous smile, almost had a certain charm, and his political arguments were persuasive. You could see the charisma everyone always speaks about, and you could comprehend how he managed to lead his supporters in the fight against the mighty Catholic Church in the 60s. It was an unthinkable task, given the stranglehold which the Church had over Malta in those days, not only culturally but politically as well. Yet his avant garde ideas of the need for more civil liberties and social justice for all, which were so far ahead of his time, struck a chord with those who were left-wing in their ideology. For many people, the need to bring about a separation of church and state simply made sense. The fact that we are still not there yet today only underlines just how revolutionary he was.
What went wrong, of course, was that Mintoff was simply there too long. He overstayed his welcome, and the longer he was in power the more infallible he thought himself to be and the cruder his methods became. As someone pointed out in the documentary, every issue had to turn into a fight and it was either his way or nothing. The thought occurred to me during the film that as the years rolled by he started behaving more like a king than a Prime Minister, and maybe that is how he ended up thinking of himself – lording it over Malta as if it were his, smiling benevolently at his subjects but only if they swore their undying allegiance and loyalty.
I have often thought that Malta should adopt the US model, where the same politician can only serve as the leader of the country for two terms. In the US this means a total of eight years, whereas here it would mean two five year terms. I’m no expert, but I do not think this would require much effort. The political parties merely need to agree that after a Prime Minister has served two terms, he must step down as party leader, and if the same party is voted into office again, then it would be with a new face.
Surely ten years in power is more than enough for anyone? It is surely enough for any country, because it avoids the inevitable cult status which surrounds a leader who is in our face for decades. Mintoff gradually become and more of an untouchable icon; a situation which reached its peak in 1976. After that, his cult figure status became so entrenched in the public psyche that it lasted for the next ten years with devastating results. Watching the adulation of his supporters made me squirm with unease; seeing the other Labour politicians and dubious-looking canvassers jostling for a prominent position whenever he spoke to the masses was even worse.
For, as we have seen time and again, not only is it dangerous to have the same politician at the helm of a country for too long, but it is not in the country’s interests to have the same hangers-on clinging to his shirttails either. The power which was wielded by Mintoff was considerable – and by association, anyone who was on his side (and in his favour) likewise wielded power. I do not need to go into the details of how it all spiraled out of control – this very well-produced documentary manages to convey the ensuing political violence in brief flashes of graphic imagery. They are all the more powerful for what they do not show.
With each election, the underlying tone of Mintoff’s speeches became less about the issues and what was good for the nation and more about him being right and everyone else being wrong. His use of inflammatory language and wild arm gestures signaled that he was losing his grip on the island. In the end, it was clear that he was simply desperate to hang on to his throne.
On the whole, I think Pierre Ellul and the team behind him, did a fair job of portraying Mintoff in his glory days as well as depicting the series of unforgettable events which led to his downfall. Perhaps the most striking moment in the film was when it segued from the crowds of supporters chanting ‘ma taghmlu xejn mal-perit Mintoff‘ during his heyday, to the cries of ‘Guda, traditur‘ by some of these same supporters when Mintoff brought down Alfred Sant and his own beloved party in 1998. It is one of life’s truisms that the same people who put you up high on that pedestal are usually the same ones who rush to knock you down when they feel you have betrayed them.
Prior to watching the film, I had heard skeptics say that this documentary is simply a well-timed propaganda exercise to remind people once again of the more unsavoury aspects of the old Labour party. Having watched it for myself, I cannot agree. I feel it was probably the first really objective account of those turbulent years in our political history, and I believe it did manage to scratch under the surface of Mintoff and portray him accurately, warts and all. According to the producers, there were people who were approached to speak about their disagreements with Mintoff but who did not wish to do so on camera because they were afraid of retribution. This I cannot understand – afraid of whom? Lorry Sant’s ghost? The phantom of Il-Fusellu? Surely that type of political thuggery is no more.
My own theory is that they were reluctant to go on record for another reason: the fear of their interview being used as a political manoeuvre. Will carefully edited excerpts from the documentary end up being used and possibly manipulated in an election campaign, for example?
For the producers’ sake, I hope not.
The greatest pity about this documentary is that Pierre Ellul never managed to interview Mintoff himself, which according to his production notes, he attempted to do several times. Dom Mintoff is notoriously difficult about granting interviews – I had tried several times and he just shouted at me gruffly over the phone, demanding to know who the heck I was.
Now that he is no longer able to give interviews, the countless questions we all have will probably never be answered.
Whether you hate Mintoff or love him, I recommend you go watch this film with an open mind. It provides much food for thought not only about our political past but, just as significantly, about our political present.
Dear Dom opens at Eden cinemas on 23 March.
- March 10, 2012 18 Comments Posted in: Sunday Opinion
Leave a comment
Related posts
-
Why should journalists work for free? May 12, 2013 | 9 comments
I am writing this in defense of my colleagues in …
-
The lean, mean party machine May 5, 2013 | 2 comments
Photo above from Maltarightnow.com And so it came to be. …
-
So far, so popular April 22, 2013 | 1 comment
I was rather surprised to read that Muscat’s approval rating …
-
Ask me anything April 15, 2013 | 1 comment
When we were kids we knew who the bullies in …
18 comments
I have not seen this film yet, but, from what I read, it seems to have all the characteristics of a subtle hatchet-job. And it could hardly be otherwise, knowing it was financed through the OPM. Knowing how they operate, you can bet your bottom dollar that not a single cent would have been forthcoming unless they had a guarantee, a priori, it would serve their political ends.
It is indicative that even the short trailer seems to include a gross falsehood – that one of the famous “6 Points” proposed that violence would be acceptable in certain cases. This was, in fact, the Church’s less-than faithful rendering of the point which called for the police to have power to enter churches and prevent the tolling of bells to disrupt political meetings. If the researchers for this film failed to pick that up, either they were very superficial or else acting in bad faith.
Victor, the six points and what Mintoff meant by violence was explained in the film by Lino Spiteri. Personally, I think it was a grave mistake for Mintoff to include that word.
Very good article Josanne. Prosit. Eagerly awaiting to see this film.
Very well written. Prosit
Victor just go watch the film before commenting. You’re being so facetious making assumptions like you have done here.
Remove your blinkers for 67 minutes and then if you must, put them back on.
@ Mr Tony Brincat
Have you been appointed as this film’s publicity agent?
I hope you are aware that Lino Spiteri fell out badly with Dom Mintoff at an early stage of his career – something which conditioned (one might say blighted) the rest of it.
Maybe this moc(k)umentary should have been sub-titles “Spiteri’s Revenge”
yes I am aware that Spiteri and Mintoff were not on good terms…but I do believe he spoke fairly. If and when you see the film yourself maybe you can come back and let me know what you thought of it?
@ vicor laivera
not at all. I haven;t even seen it but i’ve noticed your name come up on every single article saying the same thing over and over. So ‘i cant help but think that you knee jerk as soon as there is a hint of anything you might not like. What I am is a film affacinado and if the trailer of the film is anything to go by this looks like a good quality film – so we should be encouraging local filmmakers to take the leap to produce quality which is so rare to come by.
I have on my possession a slim booklet titled “Malta –Il-Knisja, L-Istat, Il-Partit tal-Ħaddiema” and sub-titled “Dokumenti dwar in-negozjati bejn il-Vatikan u l-Partit tal-Ħaddiema 1964-1966”. It was published by the MLP in September of 1966.
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/424544_10150616505033127_584898126_9259556_597486106_n.jpg
On page 65, it reproduces what the MLP was proposing as the “6th Point” under discussion here. As anyone can see, the word “violence” is nowhere to be seen
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/430415_10150616505468127_584898126_9259560_464314690_n.jpg
On page 43, it reproduces the spin put on this point by the Church authorities.
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/432110_10150616504893127_584898126_9259554_34989016_n.jpg
I think these documents speak for themselves.
that’s a very interesting booklet Victor. But is this actually referring to the same Six Points we are talking about here? If not, do you know where we can find these Six Points in their original form because that would be the only way to ascertain if the word violence was actually mentioned or not.
It would be great if a journalist would take the time to look into this objectively, without bias. Unfortunately Mr Laiviera does not come across as being an objective bystander.
A Dr Saliba has stated that the version that Laiviera is basing his argument on is a draft and not the final version submitted. He goes on to quote Lino Spiteri’s book which lists the 6th point as violence being admissable in certain instances (see the comments under the blog of Ramona Depares on the Times between the two ). I am sure that Mr Spiteri had the final version and find it difficult that Mr Spiteri could be wrong on this and Mr Laiviera right.
If only some proper journalistic research was done on this we could lay this to rest once and for all. If Mr Laiviera is right I will send him a bottle of champagne. If he is wrong I hope he will have the decency to concede defeat and stop invading articles with his perseverence on this issue.
@ Josanne – It is the sane “Six Points” and that IS the official version
@ Mr Brincat – Dr Saliba is misquoting and misrepresenting what Spiteri wrote
I have yet to watch “Dear Dom”, to determine how much of my interview was used. I gave my recollections as fairly as I could, as I always try to do. As Mr Mintoff put it in the House in one of his speeches between 1996-98, “jien u Lino ma konniex ningwalawha, imma konna nahdmu flimkien”. I might add that Mr Mintoff and I, though far from bosom friends, were never enemies. Regarding the sixth point, as I recall it “violence” was in it (I think in the sense that ‘f’certi cirkostanzi l-vjolenza hi ammissibbli’). It may have included the meaning attributed to it by Victor Laiviera on the basis of the publications he referred to. At the time the six points were proposed (in the early sixties,1963 or 1964) Mr Mintoff and Joe Attard Kingswell of the GWU had briefed me to write a series of aricles (by-lined Special Correspondent) for l-orizzont, explaining each point. I did not keep a copy of them. Perhaps someone curious enough might do a bit of research. With the benefit of distance I am inclined to think that Mr Mintoff was also influenced by the leaders fighting for independence in the colonialist era which was the backdrop to his political evolution.
From the reading I have done on the subject, I am convinced that the version stating “6. Violence is admissible in certain cases” was just the rendering (we would call it spin today) by the Church authorities of the point proposed by the MLP that the police would have the authority to enter churches and stop the bells being rung to disrupt political meetings. Particularly telling in this regard is the version given by Adrianus Koster in his seminal work “Prelates and Politicians in Malta”, pages 185 & 186.
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/430307_10150620602823127_584898126_9274657_794016756_n.jpg
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/422380_10150620602623127_584898126_9274656_776394302_n.jpg
Mr Spiteri, if I may ask you a question, where you invited to the preview as most columnists seem to have been? If not, have you wondered why not?
Yes, Victor, I was invited to the preview. Early on and subsequently reminded very courteously. i could not attend.
Thank you Lino.
If I might make a further point, it would seem that, paradoxically, The “MLP’s Six Points” or “Mintoff’s Six Points” were, in actual fact, the Church’s Six points. I don’t think that the MLP ever actually listed its demands categorically in that way, but expressed them in a coherent way as a policy. The “Six Points” as a specific list seem to have appeared for the first time in a press release from the Church side issued on the 22nd May of 1963, where they gave their own “version” of what they saw as the MLP’s demands.
This link refers:
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/432110_10150616504893127_584898126_9259554_34989016_n.jpg
I may take up your suggestion and spend a day at the Biblioteca looking up your articles (the joys of retirement!). I don’t think the MLP itself ever used the word “violence”. Let’s face it – they would have been incredibly naive fools to do so. You can call Dom Mintoff a lot of things, but not that.
Great article. Mintoff was an essential part of Malta’s history and evolution. There’s no denying that.