The hunting referendum has come and gone. As rightly described by Alex Perici Calascione, this referendum gained nothing for the hunters and simply confirmed the status quo. However, the resulting declarations in the English media about their intention to continue campaigning for the no against hunting contrast with the same position that these newspapers took after the divorce referendum.
In that referendum, the Prime Minister at the time, Lawrence Gonzi stated that he would be respecting the Yes vote, and would ensure that the Yes vote would go through Parliament. However, he insisted that he would stick to his No principle. I defended Gonzi’s choice in my news scan programme on Campus FM. The English media lambasted Prime Minister Gonzi and accused him of showing disregard for the will of the people. Ironically, the English media is now imitating Gonzi. It is arguing that it will continue to keep steadfast to its No position, irrespective of this popular vote as expressed in this referendum
This referendum has its political innuendoes. It is being said that this result expresses the urban and rural divide within Malta. This does not make sense, as the 2nd District is mainly urban but voted in favour of the Yes vote. Nor was this a question of Liberals against Conservatives. There were individuals who voted for divorce and now supported the Yes vote. How are these voters going to be equated now? One cannot be labelled liberal for voting in favour of divorce and branded traditionalist for supporting the Yes vote. Thus, the situation is more complex. Neither can it be taken as a political victory for the respective two main party leaders. The Nationalist districts voted No, while the Labour districts, while supporting Joseph Muscat’s stand, witnessed the highest levels of absenteeism. Bormla comes to mind. This locality, which is normally associated with following the Labour leader’s diktat blindly, has witnessed the greatest level of absenteeism. Therefore, not everything is rosy for Labour and this explains why Muscat is now using harsh words against the hunters if they break the laws. This referendum showed that the vote of the environmentalists is going to count in forthcoming general elections as that of the hunters. With great shrewdness, Muscat is trying to keep both factions within his fold, as he wants to repeat the past results of a massive victory.
In my opinion, Labour obtained a pyrrhic victory in supporting the Yes vote and the reaction of Joseph Muscat is a clear indication of the gravity of the situation. The margin of victory was extremely low. Labour played the game that with this victory it wanted to affirm the Leader’s influence on the electorate. Yet, the No vote won in Malta. It was only thanks to the vote in Gozo that the No choice did not go through.For this reason, triumphalist editorials in favour of the Yes vote, as the one published by L-Orizzont, on Monday, following the referendum result, do not augur well for Labour.
However, when one considers that the margin was so small, personal choices carry a lot of weight and are the reason for one of the camps failing to win the political battle. The Yes vote won with a margin of 2,220 votes.
For this reason, I agree with Stephen Calleja that Savour Balzan should take part of the blame for this result. I know Nationalists who voted Yes simply because of him. Others decided to abstain. I know Nationalists who despise his attacks on Gonzi. Others consider him to be extremist and divisive. This may appear to some as a proof of how immature and puerile we are as a nation. But this is also part of the political game. The Maltese electorate has a tendency to spurn political extremism. The fact that Moira Delia is also a staunch supporter of Muscat did not help matters either. One would be politically immature to imagine that these two leaders were going to attract great sympathy with a section of the Nationalist voters. Ironically, now the Labourites are hitting at Delia.
While as a journalist Balzan has all the right to speak his mind (and I will defend his right to do so) at the same time, one cannot expect that those in favour of Gonzi were going to show any empathy to his cause. History teaches us that battles cannot be fought on two fronts. Those who waged battles on two fronts always lost. Saviour Balzan cannot expect to wage a war against the former Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party, and at the same time, expect all the PN supporters to vote for his environmental cause. While the No vote wins were registered in PN districts, these districts had a lesser turnout than those districts normally associated with hunting.
On the other hand, if Balzan thought that by attacking Gonzi, he was going to get the sympathy of diehard Labourites, and in so doing, neutralize Muscat’s indirect appeal for a Yes vote, he erred big time. A section of the Labourite voters followed their leader’s call to vote Yes in this referendum.
As rightly noticed by the editor of this blog, Stephen Calleja, the Yes camp avoided such type of mistakes. Had the No camp been led by people who were beyond party polemics, the result might have been different.
This mistake was done by the PN in the last European Election. Gonzi was removed or better, put aside. The anti-Gonzis within the Nationalists ranks were brought to the forefront of politics. The result was catastrophic for the PN. The PN ended up getting less votes than those obtained by Gonzi in the 2013 election. Joseph Muscat has realised this fact, and he is now praising Gonzi. Muscat’s praise of Gonzi during the inauguration of the interconnectoris a case in point.
Finally, after this result, Muscat interests are about how to lessen the collateral damages that the No voters have caused to his political image, as despite his support to the Yes camp, the Yes victory was not a landslide one.
Now for the No vote campaigners there is nothing more to do than to lick their wounds and for the birds to continue to be massacred or as the BBC put it, for Malta to remain a bird-killing nation.