The ‘Sette Giugno’ in history : 1919-1979

Abstract

On the 7th of June, 1919 disturbances began in Valletta, the capital of Malta. Eventually, they spread to other parts of the Island. It was on that day that Manwel Attard, Wenzu Dyer, and Guze Bajada fell to British bullets and on the following day, the 8th of June, that Carmelo Abela was bayoneted. On the 16th of June he was dead. A Myth was born. Gradually and deliberately the four victims were built up into a multifaceted symbol. At the hands of the Party activists, they became heroes, victims, martyrs, looters, brigands. It is with this phenomenon that the main part of the thesis is concerned. It analyses how the party propagandists manipulated the import of the June riots in an attempt to deal with the difficulties inherent in political practice: How their version of the Sette Giugno was transformed to cope with the changing circumstances of the time. This analysis will help the better understanding of party propaganda then, today, and possibly, in the future; particularly since new myths are being continually being fabricated: Manwel Dimech became the revolutionary; Karen Grech a terrorist victim; 31st March 1979 the day of destiny. Moreover, since a "political movement is defined by the hopes of its members and its choice of idols", it is hoped that this thesis will permit insights into the main political movements of the last sixty years. Such an analysis is indeed useful. As Goode puts it, "what the group holds sacred, what it chooses to admire and imitate, and what words it chooses to describe its desires are important to examine for they complete the picture given by its activity and accomplishments. Three major parties -- The Labour Party, the Constitutional Party and the Nationalist Party – have been chosen for this purpose in the present work. The choice was not arbitrary; other political parties generally only lasted a few years and their publications were few and often short-lived, making their inclusions in this study a difficult one. The June riots make an interesting case study.' All three politic al parties were intimately involved; their liaison spanning a good sixty years. Indeed, this is the only occasion which is still annually commemorated today by the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party, albeit at different times of day. The three parties have made some spectacular interpretative somersaults in their relationship with the Riots. Both the Unione Politica Maltese -- the forerunner of the Nationalist party – and the Constitutional Party wanted to hush up the riots. The latter were the most consistent, but at the same time one finds people like Lord Strickland advocating a repeat of the Sette Giugnio incidents in an effort to have the Appropriation Bill of 1925 chucked out. But, as a rule, the Constitutional Party (Lord Strickland included) would not associate with the Riots and unlike the other parties, never even laid a wreath on the Sette Giugno monument. It even boycotted the unveiling ceremony of the monument. The Party consistently tried to debunk the Riots, implying "that the heroes ... were not really heroic, that they were at best ordinary, fallible men, and at worst vicious thugs. The Constitutional Party and the Sette Giugno never quite slept in the same bed -- which also promised to be the case of the Unione Politica Maltese. Until the fusion with Dr Mizzi's Partito Democratico Nazionalista, the Unione Politica Maltese considered the Riots to be regrettable incidents; the sooner forgotten, the better. This did not stop them from changing their view in 1926 with the formation of the Partito Nazionale following the fusion with Dr Mizzi's party. Dr Mizzi had followed a more adventurous policy, and immediately after the riots had held the British to blame. Following this, it was to be expected that the Sette Giugno would be built up as an anti-British event of significant proportions. It was not. Indeed, at one time, this party wanted to 'drop the curtain' on the June disturbances. Circumstances dictated otherwise. The Nationalist Party's flirtation with the riots was not as transitory as that of the Constitutional Party, but neither was it as constant as the Labour Party. They were, rather, lovers by timetable. The Labour Party itself followed a policy of gradually enhancing the importance of the Riots. Their version of the Riots consisted of a constant denial that the Riots were anti-British, that is to say until 1958.7 Then in one big somersault after the April Riots of 1958 the Sette Giugnio acquired a definite anti-British interpretation. These contradicting processes can be explained by the fact that the propagandist accounts of the Sette Guigno myth depend entirely on the circumstances and on the purposes for which they are told. As circumstances change, so is the myth reconstructed: to a large extent conditioned by the new situation. 8 The pre-election interpretation will be different from the post-election one, especially when a change in the party in government occurs. For example, in 1927 Dr Mizzi asked the Legislative Assembly to pray for the souls of the Riots' victims and at the same time his party leader, Sir Ugo Mifsud, withheld Guze Orlando a permit for a meeting about the June Riots. Next year Dr Mizzi -- now in opposition -- glorified the victims of the Riots and attacked the Labour and Constitutional parties of 'tarnishing' a constitution which had cost 'precious blood'. Such sudden changes of opinions were even more frequent in time of constitutional crisis, of which Malta had its fair share. All three parties emerge as experts at this. The most striking example is the case of the Constitutional Party which in 1958 -- after thirty years of insisting that the 1921 constitution was not the result of the Riots -- condemned in no uncertain terms the Nationalist and Labour Parties for the loss of a constitution 'like that granted because of the Riots'. In these manouverings the more one relies on traditional belief and established historical truths the better. But, no propagandist ever wrote a historical account of the Riots and, to paraphrase Swingewood in such an account history evaporates. Still, as long as the end product is plausible and is in line with party policy, it is readily accepted. When it is not, it is discarded as Guzè Bonnici's 1930's anti-British interpretation was discarded by the Labour Party. In Malta, where parochial jealousies play such a large part in party politics, it is almost inevitable that two or more groups will have different, often conflicting, versions of the Riots. Both the Labour Party and Constitutional Party followed for a long time a pro-British policy and yet they never shared a common interpretation. In fact, when the parties were together in government (during the 'Compact') there was trouble when in 1928 Strickland, following the precedent established the year before by the Nationalist Administration, withheld a permit for a meeting about Sette Giugnio which was to be held by the Labour Party. On the other hand, when. for a brief period -- during the Break with Britain Resolution -- the Nationalist and Labour Parties shared a common policy, they had almost identical versions though, even then the emphasis was different. Still, it will be seen that a striking similarity existed in the attitude of the General Workers Union to the Riots with that of the Labour Party. This is of particular interest because of the recent merger between the two bodies. The manipulation of facts is always motivated by the need to convey a specific message. In a sense the version is tailor made for the message. This message is often the core of the group's objectives the next election or a better constitution, to terminal benefits for Locally Enlisted Personnel. Sometimes it infused solidarity and supplied cogent and practical arguments for the abolition of undesirable institutions -- in the 1920's, the Senate, Plural voting, and the use of the Italian language, or simply the 'Imperialist Party' as Nationalist writers called the Constitutional Party. The Riots were slowly, but surely, politicised. The term itself ‘Sette Giugnio’ -- being attributed by one Labour Party writer to the "pro-Italian professional/dominant bourgeoisie class...'' The Riots became an ideal medium for personal attacks~ from these Dr Bartolo suffered the most, and this for the simple reason that his printing press was ransacked during the Riots. Dr Mizzi did not escape unscratched either. The Constitutional Party for well over a decade connected him with interference in the Riots and called him agent provocateur quoting from the speeches of Mussolini to the Italian Socialist newspaper Avantil to prove their case to make political capital was and still easy. The Labour Party probably made the most of this. It failed to fully exploit the incidents which occurred at the unveiling ceremony of the Sette Giugnio Monument in 1925, but promptly did so when in 1927 and 1928 permits were not granted to the party to hold meetings about the Riots. A similar attempt, fully exploited by the party, was made in 1961 by the British authorities when the P9lice did not issue a permit to the party to hold a Mass Meeting on 7th June to commemorate the June Riots Anniversary. This is the background which makes understandable the repeated claims by Mintoff and other Labour activists to put the Monument at a prominent place in Valletta. (Not to be outdone the Nationalist Party suggested in 1955 the erection of a plaque in the capital city). Yet not even a brick has been moved to forward this end. The myth itself acquired an aura, a sort of transcendental meaning. Sometimes institutions and events connected with the Riots borrowed some of that aura. This rendered them more palatable. For this reason, the origins of the Labour Party, the 1921 Constitution and the Independence Constitution, have been in the past, consistently linked with the Riots. In arguing these points, it was sometimes necessary to retain the original passages which were in Maltese. The actual structure and position of every phrase and word is in itself important. They became an integral part of the message. It is thus imperative to retain the original language. Any translation would not only have lost the original flavour but also much of its meaning. A case in point is in 1929 when revolutionary terminology was used to good effect by an anonymous Labour activist. As a conclusion, Part Two attempts to analyse the published historical works which refer to the Riots. The fundamental problem with such an attempt is the lack of any authoritive account of the Riots. 16 It is not in the aim of this thesis to provide such a work, although an attempt has been made to produce a critical examination of the works in the light of new eviden6e, separating truth from fiction. Lacunae, in the basic facts which can be easily ascertained, still exist. This becomes irritating when, whilst it is generally agreed that the Riots occurred on the 7th and 8th June only a few historians would pay much attention to the 9th, and almost none to the 10th June. Yet, the disturbances occurred on, at least, these four days. There is also no general agreement on the number of the dead claimed by the Riots. Party activists and historians are agreed that there were four victims: and indeed the Monument at the Addolorata Cemetry commemorating the victims has four names on it -- Attard, Bajada, Abela, and Dyer (the latter is wrongly spelt with a double 'e', thus, Deyer). Yet, a close examination of the Minutes of the Committee "Pro Maltese Morti e Feriti il 7e 1’8 Giugno 1919" shows that at least six died as a result of the riots. It is curious however that an anonymous letter received by the ‘Malta Taghna’ and ‘L'Unione Maltia’ dated 15th June 1920, mentioned only three dead. Standard works of reference reflect this state of affairs. The Chambers Encyclopaedia and the Enciclopedia Italiana gave equal weight to economic and political causes without linking the Riots to the 1921 constitution, as did the Encyclopaedia Brittanica in the 1969 edition. The 1974 edition omitted any reference at all to the Riots. Only the Enciclopedia Motta in an unsigned article asserts that the 1921 constitution was the direct result of the Riots. On the other hand Roberto Palmarocchi, writing in the Enciclopedia Cattolica, does not mention the Riots at all and claims that "le grandi vittorie elettorali di nazionalisti costrinsero L'Ingilterra a concedere nel 1921 una nuova costituzione’. He was obviously grossly misinformed. When qualified. historians finally turned their attention to the Riots they got bogged down in problems of definition. They argued on the nature of the 'revolution' whilst the basic monographic work was still undone. Worse still, they refused to formulate a tenable definition of revolution. It is true that revolution fascinates historians and that propagandists are not an exception. Indeed, the Sette Giugno events were called a revolution as early as the 1930's by Labour activists, and neither these bothered to define their terms of reference nor did the Nationalist writer who in 1964 insisted that it was not a revolution. It is an open secret that Maltese historiography is still in its infancy. Indeed, at a conference held on Maltese history in March 1971, Andrew Vella, then Professor of History at the University of Malta, lamented that published histories on Malta were, generally, inadequate. An analysis of the works published on, and those that refer to the Riots, confirm this. Vella also called for a scholarly revision and re-study of all that has been published “where necessary, rectifying: comfortable false heads and remould public conviction from the bottom up”. Today, the Sette Giugno still await such active attention.