History professor and former Labour general secretary Dominic Fenech warns his party against losing its soul by "pussyfooting" to pander to voters.

What is missing from the Labour Party nowadays, compared with the party you were once actively involved in?

The militancy. Of course, times have changed and maybe there is no place for a certain type of militancy. I don't mean violence, or taking to the streets on every issue. I am referring to militancy that is prepared to confront any challenge that crops up.

In the past, this militancy has led to violence and thuggery.

Unfortunately, people tend to focus on the militancy which prevailed later on. The Labour Party, from the 1950s to the mid-1980s, was a party with a very clear agenda. It wanted to change things and bring about social justice. I think excesses and violence are not derived from militancy. What I am referring to is a readiness to fight a battle. Political parties should have a cause they want to pursue. You cannot pussyfoot on every issue you tackle.

How can you guarantee militancy does not spawn violence? Do you think you could have done more when you were general secretary of the Labour Party to stop the thugs that torched The Times (in 1979)?

What I could have done? I could do very little because on that particular day I was somewhere in Republic Street involved with the main demonstration. It was only later on that I, like most others, realised what was happening. Being the party in government, Labour could have been less tolerant as an authority towards these happenings and maybe we should have proceeded against the offenders... if they could be identified.

Did the Labour Party know who they were?

I didn't know. And if the others knew, they didn't identify them. We're not even sure, strictly speaking, that they were Labour (supporters). Do you have proof? I'm not saying they weren't.

Joseph Muscat has formed what he calls a coalition of change and progressives. During a recent University debate you criticised some of the changes the PL is undergoing. You complained about the party name change, the use of EU flags instead of the traditional torċa flag, and the fact that the party was welcoming back people like (former minister) Joe Grima. Do you agree with what Dr Muscat is doing?

Let me qualify my assessment... First, I do not wish to be too critical of the current leadership because I'm not in the business of criticising for the sake of criticism. I support the Labour Party and whenever I criticised it I did so in the hope that I may get to see a true Labour Party.

The things you're mentioning, like the name change and discouraging people from waving red flags... this is all an attempt to water down what I've been calling militancy. I happen to like the red flag with the torch in it. The torch is fire; it is a living thing. The torch can bring changes - bad changes, good changes. It also lights the way ahead. So there's a symbolism to it. To discard or discourage the torch (emblem) because some Nationalists might find it offensive - that I cannot accept.

So is the party trying to pander to Nationalists?

I think it's very early days. We're only two years into the current administration and the Labour leadership is only a year-and-a-half old, so one presumes there is a strategy which will see a different Labour Party to the one we have seen in recent years by the time we get to the election.

What do you think of Labour's new adviser Marisa Micallef?

She is part of all this. At the moment I think the main changes that have taken place are either cosmetic - in other words, they are connected to image and branding - or are related to management, human resources and human relations.

Like moving Jason Micallef from general secretary to head of One Productions?

Yes, getting different people to do certain jobs. There is definitely a drive to make the party come across as a different party from what it used to be. But there is something I personally find a bit disturbing or disconcerting... If to win an election you have to de-Labour Labour, then what's the point?

It is comforting to see somebody like Ms Micallef, who was very active in the Nationalist Party, actually crossing to the other side. But if her role is to explain to the Labour Party how to be a Nationalist, I could give that advice for free. All you need to do is keep smiling, make promises you have no intention of keeping, blame the other side each time you make a mistake, and to be generally self-righteous.

What about the ideological differences between the parties. Do you think there is a distinction between them or is it being blurred?

It is difficult to distinguish in an ideological sense the Labour Party from the Nationalist Party - and it has been difficult for some time because the PN themselves are pretty much lost. I don't know what they stand for anymore except wanting to stay in government. And I think the driving force between both parties nowadays is to stay in government or to achieve government.

In a comment you posted on timesofmalta.com you said there was too much self-censorship and that the secularisation the party fought for was being undone.

I stand by my words because in recent times there have certainly been events which have shown we are not a secular state, and, I fear, less secular than we used to be.

Give me an example.

Well, there's been a big fuss because two attractive young women went for a photo shoot in a cemetery - as if attractive young women and burial grounds were somehow mutually exclusive. There's been censorship of a particular play...

...and a student newspaper.

That's the most recent and it involves a student of mine who, I should say, is the kind of student who makes you proud to be an academic. Mark Camilleri risks being sent to jail. He is the editor of a student newspaper which published a story some people thought was obscene, in bad taste or offensive or immoral...

Everybody is free to have their own thoughts, but not everybody is free to punish you for having thoughts which are different to theirs. This is not a big scandalous affair. It is a very mild deviation from what you normally would expect from a student newspaper and it has faced a ban and, maybe more alarmingly, the police have been called in. And maybe actually proceeding in court.

But how does this relate to the Labour Party?

It's a mentality.

What should Labour be doing?

Labour should come out in favour of the student. Labour should ask: is this why we lost two elections back in the 1960s to assert secularisation? So that, in 2009, the chaplain of the University can go up to the Rector and say: 'Hey, what are you going to do about this immoral publication?'

The Labour Party has adopted some stands which have gone against the Church, namely taking a position in favour of divorce and gay rights. How do you reconcile these two differing approaches?

Yes, I'm pleased to know that Joseph Muscat has broached the idea of divorce. But if you ask me if we're going to have divorce in this legislature, then my answer is no, we're not going to have divorce.

What if Dr Muscat becomes Prime Minister?

I think there is a very long way to go to the next election... more than three years.

Hypothetically.

I think it would depend on how well he would do. But even that is a bit shaky. Because unless a party says it is in favour of divorce, campaigns for it, says why and tells its parliamentary group: look, this is the position of the party and you are expected to follow that position...

So don't you agree with his idea of a free vote?

In theory it's a very democratic way, but in reality you will never get a majority.

Because people within the Labour Party will vote against?

Yes, and I don't see how people in the Nationalist Party are going to vote... or enough of them, at least.

So do you think that those opposing the conservative mainstream are not going far enough?

One of the fights of Mintoff's Labour Party in his early days was to introduce civil marriage. At the time, it was a very big step. It could have lost a certain number of votes but the party in government forged ahead.

There were other issues, like the legalisation of contraceptives, which were illegal before 1971. There were other things, which the Labour Party was able to implement because it had the pro-secularist attitude. We are not against the Church or religion but we are a secularist party and in a secular society people should not have to go through the institutions or norms of the Church in order to do what is legitimate.

It should have followed, that after the introduction of civil marriage we'd have divorce. But what has happened in the past 20 years? Even the law on civil marriage back in the 1980s was whittled down and the role of the Church was brought into civil law.

So, yes, you had a slow build-up of secularism, which is good because, after all, if there is one good thing about joining the EU it is that we may come out of this cocoon of ecclesiastical paternalism. I'm not saying that all the Church and priests are like this but....

There is the controversial issue of crucifixes in classrooms currently being discussed. The Labour Party said secularism does not mean doing away with religious symbols. Do you think it does?

I'm quite indifferent to this. I think it's a foolish issue to begin with. If I go into a lecture room, whether the lecture is a good or bad lecture depends on how prepared I am. Whether there is a crucifix or not is not going to make any difference to my performance or to the students' ability to understand me.

But as somebody who strongly believes in secularism, do crucifixes in classrooms offend you?

They don't offend me but they don't please me. I said I'm indifferent. And if people feel better with it in class, let them feel better. But if secularists are going to be prepared to go along with an icon of the Catholic religion, then the Church and those who support it should be equally respectful of those who do not like to have certain religious overtones to things which should be secular.

So, obviously, if it comes to a question of whether we are going to have a fight in this country for secularism or not, then it will be a free-for-all. And then the secularists are going to have to be against crucifixes.

Including yourself?

I'm indifferent on this particular issue. But I expect that if people are free to have crucifixes and I'm not supposed to feel upset by that, then they should not be upset if someone writes something or puts on a play that offends their morals.

What did you think of the Archbishop's comments on censorship (on the crucifix issue)?

The Archbishop now knows what it means to be censored. I'm against censorship. I wouldn't censor the Archbishop. To be fair, I don't think it's the Archbishop himself. There are members of the clergy who are putting their head up again. And there are people, who may be lay Christians, who can be sometimes more pope-ish than the Pope.

I don't know, for example, whether it was a priest or some bigoted fanatic who went to the police and drew their attention to two undressed mannequins in a Mosta shop window. I mean, is there anything less sexy than a naked mannequin? And this was for a cause (to raise awareness about sex exploitation).

Are our laws on such issues outdated?

I think they're very outdated, but it's okay because laws that are outdated can fall into disuse. But there seems to be some sort of resurgence in Malta. And the reason there is this resurgence is that there seems to be no powerful force in the country to stand up to it.

And you think the Labour Party should be the one.

Yes I think it should. For better or worse, it is the political parties in Malta that should be doing this.

You openly supported George Abela during the Labour leadership race. How would he have been different in this respect? Some people say his style is very similar to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.

As a historian I cannot speculate about what might have been. He's not leader of the Labour party.

But did you see something different in him?

Can we not discuss Dr Abela? I mean, he's now President and... look, I would have a different approach, but at the time I did not have issues of secularism in mind.

What did you have in mind?

I had in mind that I wanted the Labour Party to be a Labour Party and I still have high hopes that it will become a meaningful Labour Party.

Profile

Name: Dominic Fenech

Age: 58

Occupation: History professor at the University of Malta; Head of Department of History; Dean of the Faculty of Arts.

Political career: Labour Party general secretary (1977 - 1983)