Comment of the day: “Mintoff wanted to give parliament supremacy over the Constitution. Muscat is set to implement what Mintoff failed to achieve.”
Posted by Min Jaf:
Mintoff’s intention was to change the Constitution in a way that would give Parliament supremacy over the Constitution – which is exactly what we are seeing in Hungary now.
Mintoff’s objective was only thwarted by the strong resistance put up by the PN under the leadership of Eddie Fenech Adami, visibly and publicly backed by all right-thinking people.
Mintoff, for all his bluff and bluster, ultimately had to toe the line, settling for amendments about which there was cross-party consensus.
Mintoff’s disciple, Joseph Muscat, is set to implement all that Mintoff failed to achieve – dragging Malta into a one-party state, with curbs on individual freedoms and all the ugly implications resultant therefrom.
The PN Opposition in Parliament is now Malta’s final line of defence. If the Opposition is outmanoevoured by the government, or is rendered powerless by internal strife, that would be the end of democracy as we know it.
The situation rapidly developing today is worse than that of 1981, when Labour had gerrymandered itself back into power.
The PN must be given full support to enable it to stand up in the defence of the freedoms that were only attained 26 years ago, when the Malta Labour Party was ousted from power after 16 long years of escalating abuse.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“The situation rapidly developing today is worse than that of 1981, when Labour had gerrymandered itself back into power.”
Can you tell us why this is the case?
Cannot you figure it out for yourself ?
What an extremely arrogant comment. As for the 19 year old below, well she should get back in her pram.
I was asking the person who wrote this extremely interesting piece to provide some more insight. I like the way he or she writes. I would like to learn more and understand someone else’s views on an issue. Shoot me.
In 1981, the Labour Party governed with a majority of seats even though the PN got an absolute majority of votes in the election.
PS I’m a 19-year-old who knows my history.
Yes, Christine, you know your history, but you didn’t answer the question.
Catherine’s question, as I understand it, concerns the suggestion that the current situation is worse than 1981.
In 1981, Mintoff had already been in power for two terms. Muscat’s only just begun. As Muscat himself would say, now we have the benefit of hindsight. No one knew just how rotten Mintoff would be. Now we know better or, rather, worse.
How true. We must give the PN all the support that they need, and they must accept all the help that is offered to them.
In the UK Parliament is supreme. In Malta a 2/3 majority in our parliament can change all the Maltese constitution.
The UK doesn’t HAVE a Constitution.
And then there’s the House of Lords.
Wrong. Spectacularly wrong. In the UK the sovereign is supreme. Parliament sits at her pleasure. It is the wonderful perfection of the British system that ensures the delicate balance between the authority of the sovereign and the representative authority of parliament. That’s why it’s called “constitutional monarchy.”
Of course, we Maltese, being the backward Arab mongrels that we are, can never be expected to understand such nuances.
And so we blather on about id-due terzi, like pigmy throwbacks to Fascist Italy.
Baxxter. No. Wrong. Spectacularly wrong:
(i) The legislative supremacy of Parliament in England/the UK has been established for almost 400 years. It hasn’t been uninterrupted, but it’s been fairly stable.
(ii) ‘Parliament sits at her pleasure’.
I’m afraid that you’re right that you do not understand the nuances. The formal legal powers of the Queen are inseparable from the relevant constitutional conventions.
(iii) ‘wonderful perfection of the British system’?
It’s incredibly insular in a very Maltese way to suggest that the British system is perfect. England/the UK has struggled to have an enforceable Bill of Rights for 800 years; they have spent the past 15 years debating an outdated electoral system and an undemocratic House of Lords; the devolution settlement is almost universally deemed unsatisfactory.
Yawn fekin’ yawn.
The government governs, parliament legislates, but the sovereign reigns. She doesn’t govern or legislate.
Does that make sense to you? You and I agree but you seem not to have understood what I said.
I’m not writing an academic paper here. I write for effect. So when I say “perfect” I mean “far superior to the Maltese system”.
The British have a sense of the immutability of certain things. The Maltese, with their ridiculous “republic” are always two thirds of a step away from madness.
Yawn away, Baxxter – you started with the spectacular pedantry. But I like most of your comments too much, so I’ll shut up now.
It’s not pedantry. It’s just me wishing we were still subjects of the British sovereign. Screw republicanism, screw independence, screw false promises of promotion through merit.
David, I’m sorry but I can’t understand how the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is relevant. I don’t think that ‘Min Jaf”s hyperbole is particularly helpful, but nor can I see why your simplistic account offers any comfort.
Yes, parliament is supreme in the UK, BUT subject to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy itself and subject to the rule of law. In many ways, those doctrines are far more stable than any requirement of a 2/3 majority in written constitutions.
Diceyan orthodoxy is notoriously difficult to displace (hence the difficult accommodation of the supremacy of EU law in the UK, and the awkward structure of the Human Rights Act).
But quite apart from legal niceties, the constitutional order is so stable in the UK partly because that order is infused with a longstanding political consensus – the political constitution. Malta has no such consensus, except arguably to the extent that there is a political constitution that runs counter to established formal constitutional principles.
Refer to Art. 66 (3) (a) & (3)(b). Mintoff would also have removed those safeguards had he had his way.
http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8566&l=1
(3) In so far as it alters –
(a) this sub-article or sub-article (4) of this article; or
(b) sub-article (2) of article 76 of this Constitution,
a bill for an Act of Parliament under this article shall not be
presented to the President for his assent unless not less than three nor more than six months after it s passage through the House in the manner specified in sub-article (2) of this article it has been submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives and the majority of the electors voting have approved the bill.
We always knew that Mintoff’s ultimate objective was to have parliament supreme. They used to love saying ‘parliament is the highest institution of the land’.
Their INTENT has always been to undermine democracy. I used to find this intriguing and annoying at the same time. I used to argue with friends who were graduate/ laburisti,’how can you be labour, why can’t you see Mintoff for what he is?’. Thank God we had Eddy Fenech Adami who lifted our spirits. We were determined that if we were to be overcome we would do it while fighting till we choke in our blood. And there were few who did.
Now we have his disciple carrying out the job. After all these years in opposition, their first task in Government is to change the Constitution.
Muscat says that they have learned from their mistakes. He knows that Mintoff’f policies and violent tactics are not valid in our times.He must be more subtle and use finesse. He cannot silence menbers of the opposition by bullying them as they did to the Fenech Adami family but he can BUY individuals from the opposition as we are increasingly experiencing. There is no need to burn The Times but he can infiltrate it or use bribes to turn the press in his favour.
So while the Mission remains the same the Strategy and Police are changed according to the times we live in.
The good news is that we have been quickly made aware of his motive. We can only prepare ourselves for the struggle.
And as Baxxter puts it, NO SURRENDER. And we all know what the great Winston Chirchill used to say.
Very well put. Not very comforting thoughts, though.
I’d rather live in a successful one party state than a failed democracy. Imagine living in a country where a political party, like the PN, that has tons of debt, is basically living on the people’s taxes and “borrowing” from the public without their consent…I can’t imagine what sort of thievery had been going on behind our backs. If they can’t handle the party’s finances, I’m damn sure they can’t handle the country’s.
[Daphne – They are two separate issues. That the Nationalist government managed the economy well is a matter of record, not speculation. If you would rather live in a successful one-party state, your range of options is, unfortunately, extremely restricted.]
A one-party state is a failure by definition. Name one that has successfully protected individual rights and freedoms.
Oh, but one-party states DO protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, literally – the one who is running the show, and f*ck the rest. That is what one party states are all about.
Catherine, is it possible you are not perceiving that ‘Malta taghna lkoll’ is rapidly evolving into “Malta taghna lkoll il-LABURISTI.
Daphne always mantained that Muscat is a miniature Mintoff. The sleeping dragon is awakening.
I maintained the same thought just 4 months after JM got the party leadership.
“The PN must be given all support….”
Such a statement would be in place after saying…
“The PN should be vigilant, and give evidence of this.”
Immediate action on both statements is very necessary, especially right now.
Immediate for vigilance should be within 24 hours latest.
Daphne is very vigilant, and still I find that when she is not here for a day, there is not only a thirst, but a need for her statement and all the informative comments here.
It is not only for the sake of communication and information, but as a stabilising reassurance of a crisp voice representing sanity in Maltese politics.