Ample time to let things calm down a bit and engage in some sober, rational reflection on what was Malta’s first experience of an abrogative referendum called following a public petition on the subject.
Why now?
Abrogative referenda were introduced into the Maltese statute book by a Nationalist government close to two decades ago, so why is it only now that campaigners set out to collect the number of signatures required by law to call a referendum to abolish spring hunting?
The reason is that, over the years, the Nationalist administration had managed to find a compromise. It may have not made everyone happy (hardly anyone, in fact) but it was fair. Hunting was allowed but rules were rules and, whenever the line was crossed, punishment ensued without fear or favour. It was a state of affairs everyone – however grudgingly – was slowly settling for.
Then Labour was voted into office. It had reached that stage – in part – due to a deal it had made with the hunters. That deal was secret (which says a lot) but we can imagine what it involved from the events that followed: in return for votes, the government would turn a blind eye to what was going on in the countryside.
Fair deal?
Little did the hunters realise that their gain came at the expense of the compromise that had matured. Things got no better when Roderick Galdes, whose moniker ‘Parliamentary Secretary for Animal Rights’ is as free of irony as the ‘Ministry of Truth’ in Orwell’s Nineteen eighty-four, announced that he had found “a loophole” in the EU’s Bird Directive.
Did he say “loophole”? “Loopy” is more like it. The petition for an abrogative referendum got moving. It is not insignificant that the spring hunting referendum attracted a higher turnout, and had a closer result, than the divorce referendum barely four years ago. Values, or at least their order of priority, have certainly changed and it seems that, in the 21st century, most Maltese have stronger views about the environment than about the indissolubility of marriage.
Hunters have been casting themselves as the victims, with the referendum being an attack on a minority right coming out of nowhere. But, in reality, it was the secret deal with Labour that upset the balance and that brought this onto themselves. There’s hardly any going back to the status quo ante now and hunters seem to realise that the referendum result was hardly the environmentalist lobby’s last say on the matter.
Progressive labour?
Joseph Muscat is like the proverbial French Radical who, at the time of the Revolution, would note in which direction the crowd was charging and then try to place did not work too well. The Prime Minister may remind us that he had summarily closed the last spring hunting season but we all know that he did that for no other reason than to improve the chances of Karmenu Vella being appointed the EU’s Environment Commissioner. The same goes for the promise that he would not tolerate any “flagrant illegalities”. The first protected bird was downed 24 hours into the opening of the season. Another one followed on the second day. If the hunters in question are deserving of the punishment under the law, the attention they have been getting is hardly fair: that should be directed at Joseph Muscat and his self-righteous posturing.
Who’s invincible?
There is one final lesson from all this. Survey upon survey showed a wide ‘no’ majority until only a few weeks before the referendum. The ‘Yes’ campaign managed an impressive turnaround and battled until the end – which turned out to be enough to see it scrape through.
Surveys give only a snapshot at a point in time. They do not necessarily point out a trend, much less predict the future. I will not dwell here on the many reasons why the result was so different from the surveys – that has already been done elsewhere. This is just a reminder of a point that, while obvious, can still be forgotten: that in a campaign, campaigning matters and makes a difference.