Today marks the 87th anniversary of the Malta Labour Party. It was on the 15th May 1921 that the Committee of the 'Camera del Lavoro' held its first General Meeting.
The date was not chosen randomly. It marked, the thirtieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Papal encyclical 'Rerum Novarum', which encyclical addressed the condition of the working classes, and which discussed the relationships and mutual obligations obtaining between capital and labour. The importance of this Papal encyclical to the working classes were obvious, for it supported the rights of labour to form unions, and contained one of the earliest proposals for a decent wage.
As every birth is preceded by conception and a period of gestation, so too was the formal setting up of the Party preceded by a preliminary preparatory phase. In fact, the first steps towards the setting up of the Party were taken by 12 founding members employed in the 'Workers' Union Branch Nr. 3' who, on the 15th October 1920, contractually agreed to bind themselves, by means of a contract in the acts of Notary P. Carbonaro, to fork out £25 each (a fortune at the time) and to use these funds for the setting up of the 'Camera del Lavoro'. The first President of the Party was Dr. P.G. Frendo and the first General Secretary was Mr. G. Bencini.
By the time that the 1921 'self-government' constitution had been granted, they had set up a political organisation whose aim was that of striving to advance the workers' cause. The Party contested the 1921 elections presenting a political program 'Pro Aris et Focis' based on the calls for greater democracy, honesty, and justice. In the Parliamentary elections, the Party garnered some 31% of the popular vote electing 7 deputies, whereas in the Senate it elected 2 Senators with 21% of the vote, (another 2 were elected to represent the working classes from the Trade Union Council, thereby increasing its tally of Senators to 4) and this at a time when the majority of workers were still disenfranchised.
The subsequent years were to witness a political group that was to go from strength to strength. Despite the difficuties, the Malta Labour Party, as it subsequently became known, never waivered from the aims it was originally set up for, by continuously striving to improve the working conditions of the working classes.
When in government, the MLP has achieved a veritable social and economic revolution, by inter alia legislating in favour of such notions as the creation of the welfare state, the setting up of minimum acceptable working wages and conditions, proving for free and good education and health care to all by right, the widening of the political franchise by giving women the right to vote and contest elections as well as bringing down the voting age to 18, and the introduction of the one man one vote principle. In opposition, the MLP has ensured that the needs of the workers are always taken into account by the powers that be.
Today, 87 years on, we need to look back upon these early years not with a sense of nostalgia but with appreciation at the great difficulties that our predecessors have had to overcome. The difficulties that we face today are equally great but the courage and determination manifested by our predecessors serves as a beacon showing us the way forward.
In the words of Dr. Paul Boffa 'il-grajja tal-Partit tal-Haddiema mhix grajja ta' bniedem jew ta' xirka, jew ta' ghaqda, izda hija l-grajja ta' qawmien ta' poplu, is-sebh ta' ideat godda, evoluzzjoni intellettwali tal-kotra, tibdil mid-dlam ghad-dawl, mill-inkwiet ghall-paci, minn stat ta' jasar ghal stat li jixraq lil bniedem haddiem: l-ghola kreatura fin-natura. Il-Partit tal-Haddiema twieled biex jikkumbatti l-hakma u l-ideat konservattivi qodma; kienet iz-zerriegha mitfugha f'ghalqa ghammiela. Minn xitla ckejkna li tmil ghal kull ziffa, illum sar sigra qawwija, soda, dritta, li ebda riefnu ma jista' jahsad ghax l-gheruq huma mqabbda fil-blat zonqri. L-gheruq huma l-ideal li fuq hu mibni l-Partit. Il-blat zonqri huwa mohh iz-zghazagh haddiema li jhaddnu l-ideal laburista. Zghazagh haddiema, habrieka u ntelligenti li ghall-ideal taghhom qedghin jissagrifikaw sahhithom u buthom. Il-Partit Laburista tghallem ibati biex jirbah, u jirbah irid bhal ma rebah f'pajjizi aktar 'il quddiem minna. Hadd, hu min hu, qawwi kemm hu qawwi, ma jista' jeqred dan il-moviment. Jeqirdu hadd u hadd. Ifixklu xi ftit jista', biex johrog aktar safi, qawwi u gelliedi. Gelliedi iva ghandu jkun il-Partit tal-Haddiema. M'ghandu jibza' minn hadd. Min jibza mill-babaw, mid-dlam, mhux maghna, jitlaqna. L-ideal taghna huwa qaddis, iz-zmien huwa maghna. Kuragg u bla biza' ghandha tkun l-ghajta taghna: Ilkoll flimkien wara l-bandiera tal-Partit: Nirbhu u Nirbhu Zgur.'
The date was not chosen randomly. It marked, the thirtieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Papal encyclical 'Rerum Novarum', which encyclical addressed the condition of the working classes, and which discussed the relationships and mutual obligations obtaining between capital and labour. The importance of this Papal encyclical to the working classes were obvious, for it supported the rights of labour to form unions, and contained one of the earliest proposals for a decent wage.
As every birth is preceded by conception and a period of gestation, so too was the formal setting up of the Party preceded by a preliminary preparatory phase. In fact, the first steps towards the setting up of the Party were taken by 12 founding members employed in the 'Workers' Union Branch Nr. 3' who, on the 15th October 1920, contractually agreed to bind themselves, by means of a contract in the acts of Notary P. Carbonaro, to fork out £25 each (a fortune at the time) and to use these funds for the setting up of the 'Camera del Lavoro'. The first President of the Party was Dr. P.G. Frendo and the first General Secretary was Mr. G. Bencini.
By the time that the 1921 'self-government' constitution had been granted, they had set up a political organisation whose aim was that of striving to advance the workers' cause. The Party contested the 1921 elections presenting a political program 'Pro Aris et Focis' based on the calls for greater democracy, honesty, and justice. In the Parliamentary elections, the Party garnered some 31% of the popular vote electing 7 deputies, whereas in the Senate it elected 2 Senators with 21% of the vote, (another 2 were elected to represent the working classes from the Trade Union Council, thereby increasing its tally of Senators to 4) and this at a time when the majority of workers were still disenfranchised.
The subsequent years were to witness a political group that was to go from strength to strength. Despite the difficuties, the Malta Labour Party, as it subsequently became known, never waivered from the aims it was originally set up for, by continuously striving to improve the working conditions of the working classes.
When in government, the MLP has achieved a veritable social and economic revolution, by inter alia legislating in favour of such notions as the creation of the welfare state, the setting up of minimum acceptable working wages and conditions, proving for free and good education and health care to all by right, the widening of the political franchise by giving women the right to vote and contest elections as well as bringing down the voting age to 18, and the introduction of the one man one vote principle. In opposition, the MLP has ensured that the needs of the workers are always taken into account by the powers that be.
Today, 87 years on, we need to look back upon these early years not with a sense of nostalgia but with appreciation at the great difficulties that our predecessors have had to overcome. The difficulties that we face today are equally great but the courage and determination manifested by our predecessors serves as a beacon showing us the way forward.
In the words of Dr. Paul Boffa 'il-grajja tal-Partit tal-Haddiema mhix grajja ta' bniedem jew ta' xirka, jew ta' ghaqda, izda hija l-grajja ta' qawmien ta' poplu, is-sebh ta' ideat godda, evoluzzjoni intellettwali tal-kotra, tibdil mid-dlam ghad-dawl, mill-inkwiet ghall-paci, minn stat ta' jasar ghal stat li jixraq lil bniedem haddiem: l-ghola kreatura fin-natura. Il-Partit tal-Haddiema twieled biex jikkumbatti l-hakma u l-ideat konservattivi qodma; kienet iz-zerriegha mitfugha f'ghalqa ghammiela. Minn xitla ckejkna li tmil ghal kull ziffa, illum sar sigra qawwija, soda, dritta, li ebda riefnu ma jista' jahsad ghax l-gheruq huma mqabbda fil-blat zonqri. L-gheruq huma l-ideal li fuq hu mibni l-Partit. Il-blat zonqri huwa mohh iz-zghazagh haddiema li jhaddnu l-ideal laburista. Zghazagh haddiema, habrieka u ntelligenti li ghall-ideal taghhom qedghin jissagrifikaw sahhithom u buthom. Il-Partit Laburista tghallem ibati biex jirbah, u jirbah irid bhal ma rebah f'pajjizi aktar 'il quddiem minna. Hadd, hu min hu, qawwi kemm hu qawwi, ma jista' jeqred dan il-moviment. Jeqirdu hadd u hadd. Ifixklu xi ftit jista', biex johrog aktar safi, qawwi u gelliedi. Gelliedi iva ghandu jkun il-Partit tal-Haddiema. M'ghandu jibza' minn hadd. Min jibza mill-babaw, mid-dlam, mhux maghna, jitlaqna. L-ideal taghna huwa qaddis, iz-zmien huwa maghna. Kuragg u bla biza' ghandha tkun l-ghajta taghna: Ilkoll flimkien wara l-bandiera tal-Partit: Nirbhu u Nirbhu Zgur.'
Posts
6 comments:
The blog post "87 Years Young" is featured on Maltamedia: The Maltese Blogosphere
- Nominate blog post of the month -
Taht Mintoff l-MLP kien jiccelebra t-twaqqif tieghu bhala fl-1949.
Fausto Majjistral, the reason why the Labour Party under Mintoff celebrated its foundng at a later date is because it would have liked us to forget its origins as a christian organisation founded by clerics, including one Mikiel Gonzi, senator elected in the name of the Labour Party and later Archbishop of Malta and archfoe of Mintoff. They would like us to forget that their so called 60's struggle was no more than an internal Labour Party fight. Mikiel Gonzi simply did to Mintoff what Mintoff later did to Sant. Both Gonzi and Mintoff thought their successors were betraying the ideals of their party as they perceived them to be and brought them down when they could.
Mikec, your comments about the origins of the MLP are factually incorrect. The MLP was not founded by clerics, and neither was Mons. Gonzi one of its founding members, although it is correct to say that he did represent the party in the Senate. Should you be interested in learning the true facts about the MLP's origins, I would suggest that you read Guze Bonnici's account of the same.
As to your comments regarding the 1960, I find them to be profoundly offensive. The 1960s represented Malta at its worst, with religion being used as a weapon for political gains. It was certainly no 'internal Labour Party struggle' as you label it. It was a struggle by a party that wanted to take on the conservative forces in Malta in its efforts to take Malta out of the clutches of the middle ages, a struggle which the MLP eventually won.
Let me remind you that the Church has publicly apologised for its actions. More than four decades later, we are still waiting for the PN, which was the net beneficiary of such misdeeds, to follow suit.
Mikec, violence is violence and it is always wrong and condemnable. It does not become justifiable because it is of a psychological nature or because it originated from the pro-PN forces.
Dear Keith,
To start with let me put my comments in perspective, in that I am not a supporter of the church and have no intention of defending it or supporting its involvement in politics, either in the past or the future. I wouldn’t put it in the same scale of negativity as the Labour Party under Mintoff in my personal scale of negativity, but my feelings towards it can at best be described as neutral.
With respect to your remark about my comments being offensive, it is the unfortunate truth that a clinical analysis of history is often offensive to one party (small ‘p’) or another, but you will agree that if there is a Maltese Party which has fought its internal battles in public it is the MLP. Whether that is a good thing or not is a separate issue.
Note also that my intention is not to be offensive to the average Labourite and as far as I’m concerned the villain of the piece and target of my comments is Mintoff. Labourites who feel bad about the 60’s should be directing their ire at Mintoff and no-one else. They were his victims then as the whole of the nation was later.
As far as I am concerned, even assuming he ever did any good for this country, it is far outweighed by the harm he did to the democratic fabric of the nation, to the national psyche, to the structure of our economy, to the way we do politics, to the way we deal with each other, to the Labour party in the confrontational way it has done politics since his ascent to its leadership, in the paranoic way it behaves, effectively removing my democratic right to vote for an alternative in government by its unsuitability as a replacement for the PN. And recent events seem to indicate that this miserable set of circumstances will continue.
Back to the original points raised in my comment. To start with, whatever spin you put on it, the Labour Party was inspired by christian thinking on the rights of the worker and whether you like it or not the involvement of clerics such as Mikiel Gonzi and Canon Bugeja, not to mention people such as Alfons Maria Galea cannot be denied. The fact that Mikiel Gonzi was elected as a Senator on behalf of the Labour party is huge and to simply remark that it is true and gloss over it does not detract from its validity in backing the main point of my argument. You cannot dispute the fact the Archbishop Gonzi was a labourite, which is a central point. Incidentally it is worth noting that when the MLP split in the 60’s, the temporary splinter, called itself the Christian Workers Party, before fading into obscurity/reabsorbtion. He certainly was not a Mintoffian, but if you equate the Labour party with Mintoff, then apart from doing it a huge disservice, your original article is factually incorrect and you should celebrate 1949 as the founding year and not 1921.
To get to the church-mlp dispute itself, turning it round and calling it a righteous battle against conservative forces which the MLP won, when we are STILL one of the greatest bastions of conservatism in the world outside Islam is laughable.
The facts are different.
Mikiel Gonzi perceived Labour’s way of doing politics under Mintoff, its general approach, and its international affiliations as a stroll (or a headlong rush) along the path to communism, dictatorship and the creation of a police state (and boy was he right, as we found out 20 years later). As the head of an organization which has always been the victim of such situations, he was perfectly within his rights to force his ‘constituents’ to choose between his organisation (the church) and the one he perceived to be attacking it (the MLP). It is one thing to advocate (as I do) that the church should keep out of politics, but when it is a victim of politics it has every right to defend itself.
As to the Church’s apology, I suggest you find the original quote and read it properly. You will find it is couched in language priests are adept at using for purposes of manipulation. In any case, the Church apologising for Mikiel Gonzi’s (a labourite) reaction to what he saw as an attack by Mintoff (another labourite) doesn’t detract from the fact that it was a battle between two labourite egos at the expense of the labourite in the street.
What I find hysterically funny is your comment that the PN hasn’t apologised. Apologised for what? For its opponent committing hara kiri? Should it apologise also for winning the last three elections which it has won mainly thanks to the MLP? Why should it apologise for its opponent’s inadequacies?
Describing the Church as a pro-PN force is also laughable. If anything (there is no doubt, in fact) it is the PN which is a pro-church force not the other way round. But it is also another symptom of labour paranoia and its obsession with the church and that all of a sudden all the missionaries are going to come back to Malta to vote against it.
And finally, it is my turn to take offence. The tone of your response implies that the 60’s dispute was somehow remotely comparable to the labour regime of 1971-1987. I find that highly offensive. I cannot accept a lecture about the evil of violence from an exponent of the Malta Labour Party. Maybe in another 20 years, but not now.
Mikec, I respect your opinions, though I do not share them. As I have had occasion to quote in another article on this blog, 'facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.'
It would seem that your interpretation of the facts is very different from mine. At best, perhaps, we can agree to disagree.
Post a Comment