Towards Dominion Status
BY DR. GEORGE BORG OLIVIER LITTLE is known to the British public of the strong opposition in Malta to the plan for integration with Britain. Integration is not a unanimous demand of the Maltese people. It is being sought by only one of the two political parties represented in the Maltese Legislative Assembly. And it is far from the truth that in the last election Malta voted for integration. The Malta Labour Party, which is requesting integration, has only been in office since March of this year; its victory at the polls was due to a normal swing of the political pendulum after a long period of administration first by a minority Nationalist Government in 1950, and then by Coalition Governments of the Nationalist Party and Dr. Boffa's Malta Workers Party in 1951 and 1953.
The position today is that the Nationalist Party—now the official Opposition—has come out of office much stronger than when it first took charge of the administration of the island. In the September, 1950, election it gained only 31,000 of the 106,000-odd votes cast, and only twelve of the forty seats in the Assembly. The Nationalists now have seventeen seats, and they polled 50,000 out of the total 120,000 votes cast in the last general election-4,000 votes more than they had polled in December, 1953.
There appears to be a belief in Britain that Malta is yearning for integration in the British political system as the one and only solution for her constitutional and economic predicament. This is certainly not the case. The Nationalist Party opposes integration because, apart from any disadvantages to the United Kingdom, it would have many drawbacks for Malta. Our island is not a backward colony; we are, indeed, a small nation, but we have an ancient civilisation—a unique his- torical background with a national flag and anthem of its own, and a religion, a language and a culture entirely different from those of Britain.
Her imperishable war record has earned for Malta the award of the George Cross by the late King George VI. It has been remarked that 'the dignity, traditions and importance of this gallant island' are in inverse ratio to its size. Malta has had responsible government in practically all internal affairs since 1921, with an all-Maltese Cabinet and an all- elected Legislative Assembly. It is not at all surprising, there- fore, that one party representing 43 per cent. of the electorate, and another party under the leadership of the Hon. Mabel Strickland, representing another 3.7 per cent., should be firmly against the proposed integration plan in the belief that such a political device is not in the interests of Anglo-Maltese relationship. In fact, it would hinder Malta's development in the constitutional field. Worse, it would deprive the Maltese of their island's national entity and individual character, in which they take justifiable pride.
Malta's place is in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Her old friendship with Britain must be maintained; but integration with Britain is an altogether different story. A closer association is not achieved by the absorption of the smaller by the larger territory. Such an association cannot last unless it is based on the principle that all free peoples have a right to a national existence and to shape their own destiny. Any consideration which may have caused the Labour Party in Malta to depart from this line of policy must be of a tem- porary and capricious nature. It is bound to give way in the course of time to more lasting legitimate aspirations based on the real intimate feelings of the Maltese and, indeed, of all freedom-loving peoples, who will never validly renounce the right to autonomy.
It is not easy for us to understand how the United Kingdom Government can even consider the adoption of a system of colonial policy developed already by other Imperialist nations without success. What Malta really needs is further develop- ment in the social and economic spheres and an improvement in its constitutional status, which would satisfy the legitimate aspirations of a freedom-loving nation and at the same time enable the Maltese to improve their existing industries and introduce new ones into the island, attract many more tourists and by their own efforts—coupled with British aid for develop- ment—help Malta stand on her feet. This should be both Malta's and Britain's aim. Parasitism is hideous and degrading.
Britain has agreed to subsidise a long-range social and economic development plan which is accepted by all political parties on the island. Whether in recognition of the Nationalist Party contention, endorsed by British economic experts, or in conformity with the prevailing policy of aiding the develop- ment of dependent territories, capital for long-term economic planning is forthcoming. The Malta Labour Party is asking, as a sine qua non of the integration plan, for 'social services and direct taxation for the people of Malta on a basis of absolute parity with residents in Britain.' Should this be wholly agreed to by Britain, and accepted in Malta, the capital which would have to be provided annually and indefinitely by the British Exchequer for the maintenance of the Welfare State in Malta would, if there is to be any financial sense in the plan, presumably exceed the yearly revenue which direct taxation in the island would yield to Britain. It might be worth considering whether Great Britain should not agree to pay that yearly contribution towards Malta's development And economic solvency either as a strategic rent or on other grounds, without embarking on a highly controversial annexa- tion or union of an experimental nature.
Conversely, integration may be conceived on the lines recommended by Dr. Balogh in his recent report on the economic problems of Malta, when he advised that 'The development of Malta must be based on a programme of lifting productivity in all sectors of the economy. Then, and only then, would a general increase in wages and in living standards have firm foundations. . . . Raising wages to the levels of the United Kingdom must be a long-term objective, but unless it is part of an organic process, in which the whole economy participates, it will be self-defeating.' In this case, there would be no valid reason for rushing a solution to its constitutional problem. More thought should be given to the request made by the previous Maltese Government that Malta could come under the Commonwealth Relations Office even if, for practical purposes, she chooses of her free will to limit her natural aspirations to sovereignty and independence by agree- ing to a constitution which falls short of full dominion status. Malta may well in due course be developed into an auto- nomous unit within the British Commonwealth in relation to Britain only, with friendly agreements which would enable Britain to continue to have full use of all facilities necessary for defence purposes. External affairs and relations with the full members of the Commonwealth affecting Malta would be handled by both countries jointly.
The Nationalist Party's proposals for a solution to Malta's constitutional and economic problems are on these lines. They may well prove to be satisfactory to both parties and bring about a closer association with Britain based on good will, loyalty and friendship.
Previous page
