Yesterday week, Malta voted to allow spring hunting. The Yes camp won with the slightest of margins – 2,200 votes. Many said that the electorate should respect the result – the people had spoken. Some felt reassured by the Prime Minister’s statement that this was the last chance for hunters. This week’s incidents convinced some that they had made the wrong choice when they voted ‘Yes’. We asked four opinionists to share their views on the six-week long campaign, the role of politicians, the Prime Minister’s warning and how the recent illegalities have dented the hunting lobby’s image.
Nickie Vella de Fremaux - Family Lawyer
“I was very disappointed by the apathy shown by many who did not even bother to vote. This angered me given that there only a marginal victory for the Yescamp. One can safely hypothesise that given the districts where the turn out to vote was so low (which districts were not hunting districts – St Julian’s etc), in my book it is clear that the majority of the population is effectively against spring hunting.
I think it was completely wrong for the leaders of both political parties to have declared how they were going to vote, merely because, sadly, we still live in a day and age where many people are blinkered and led by the nose by the leader of their political party. They made an issue relating to mature and the first ever abrogative referendum a political matter. Having said that, I do not think that the result was politically related. Many including myself did not care how– Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil were going to vote because this was a subjective issue about the environment and saving the turtle dove from extinction. What was even worse was the fact that, close to the voting date, the Prime Minister practically joined in canvassing for the Yes campaign. I think he overstepped the line – he ought to have kept his place and stepped back - he had already done too much already by pronouncing himself.
“Following the result, the Prime Minister warned that he would take drastic action against any form of illegalities. Joseph Muscat said he would not hesitate to close the hunting season, just as he had done last year. But two illegalities were committed barely two days after his warning, one of them by a person with prior convictions and who also stands charged with attempted murder. It is very worrying that people with a criminal conduct such as this are allowed to be hunters and carry shotguns. I want to emphasise that I am not against hunting per se, I am against spring hunting and abuse. There are good hunters and there are bad ones, and the latter need to be eradicated. The Prime Minister wrote on Twitter that hunters would be given a final chance but what are we waiting for? The season is so short and there have already been two illegalities committed in as many days.
“I know many hunters who are friends of mine – I understand that this is a passion and a sport and they actually eat their catch. It is not about the kill. Unfortunately, the referendum concerned the endangerment of the Turtle Dove, which flies over Malta in spring – the mating season – causing these birds which are monogamous from reproducing at a fast enough rate. Malta, it must be said, is the only country in the EU which can hunt this species in spring. This is wrong and deplorable. Studies have shown a 70 per cent reduction in Turtle Dove populations over the past 30 years, with it being predicted that the species could become extinct within the next two decades. What infuriates me is the apathy, the undue irrelevant political interference and the disregard of hunting rules and regulations – aren’t we meant to be living in an educated society after all? These things should not be taken lightly. In my opinion one illegality is one too many, and if closing the season is the only way these ‘cowboys’ will learn then so be it!
Simon Mercieca - Historian at the University of Malta
Instead of discussing the reasons for the No vote defeat, I will undertake what in philosophy is call a hermeneutical analysis and try to interpret the result and the conclusions reached till now. Hermeneutical studies show that the same facts led to different or similar interpretations. I will focus on the role attributed Joseph Muscat in the yes victory.
In this referendum campaign, Joseph Muscat played on emotions; precisely on what is known in psychology as positive emotions. This has been his main political strategy till now. This works for the Labour voter. The Nationalist voter shares a different psychology. The voter here relies more on what in psychology are termed as preferences. Preferences are simple affectations and are not as strong as emotions. This explains why the No vote in Malta was more dominant in the Nationalist districts and the Yes vote in Labour ones.
The anti-hunting lobby was winning in the surveys because the emotions against hunting are in general stronger than the emotions in favour of it. Therefore I agree with those who argued that Muscat helped to tilt the balance towards the Yes vote. He played on emotions. The hunters should be eternally grateful to him for winning them this referendum.
In so doing Muscat hit two birds with one stone. He kept his pre-electoral promise of supporting the hunting lobby. At the same time, he put in check the two protagonists of the antihunting lobby; Moira Delia and Saviour Balzan. He sent them a political message that he is stronger than both of them despite their power in the media. He told them that he is still the undisputed political leader and will not allow them to become divas in politics. It is he who calls the shots and not the other way round.
On the other hand, this vote reconfirmed the importance of the Nationalist Party. Many thought that after two consecutive catastrophic defeats, the Nationalist Party was no longer an important player capable to condition the national agenda. SHout thought that they could pass without having a high profile person from the Nationalist side or one associated with tradition or conservative politics. This wrong analysis worked against SHout. I know Nationalists who abstained or voted yes because they dislike Saviour Balzan’s criticism of their party.
The marginal victory of the Yes front should be attributed in part to these mistakes. The difference was so marginal that each vote counted here. The Yes camp realized this, as it was not convinced that it was going to win this referendum. Therefore the hunter leaders were ready to give up everything in order to win, including replacing old faces and forget about their internal divisions. They had also succeeded in introducing gender issues into hunting.
SHout sought first to play the gender game. They sought to attack the traditional and conservative voters by obtaining the empathy of the so-called liberal voters. This explains the choice of a gay person to lead their campaign. From a strategic point of view, playing this Marxist card was all wrong. The hunters were able to neutralize this by claiming that they were favouring the claims of the minorities. This position became the battle cry of many Labour activities in defending hunting.
The pro-hunting lobby was able to turn the tables by removing all the chauvinist perceptions associated with hunting by presenting a woman as their main speaker and spokesperson. With her feminine character and personality, she became the nemesis of Saviour Balzan’s bellicose media image. This gender issue is important since women are not normally associated with hunting.
SHout were over confident and for personal or other reasons, their main leaders were less ready to compromise and move to the wayside, Moreover, there are too many prima donnas in
the environmental lobby. This explains why the environmentalist failed to make a common front.
Godfrey Baldacchino - Professor of Sociology at the University of Malta
Referenda are just signposts in the political journey of a country: that journey continues after the event. Beyond the drama and finality of numbers, a sober assessment is warranted. I will limit my analysis here to two points.
First, who are the real victors of the spring hunting abrogative referendum?
Last September, Scotland voted in its first-ever referendum on independence from the United Kingdom. The referendum was lost hands down (45 per cent-55 per cent; turnout: 85 per cent), but support for the Scottish National Party (SNP), which champions independence, has since soared. The SNP may find itself kingmaker after the UK General Election due on 7 May.
Last week, Malta voted on its first ever abrogative referendum, pushed forward by a broad environmental coalition. The referendum was lost, by a whisker (49.6 per cent-50.4 per cent: turnout 75 per cent), but sympathy for the ‘No’ camps has mellowed with already two flagrant violations of hunting regulations.
Had turnout for the referendum been even just slightly stronger, the result would have been different. The Yes camp had every reason to mobilise, its cherished traditions and practices under serious threat. Hunters had everything to lose, and nothing to gain. Hence their disposition to get out the voters, and to galvanise sympathisers to follow suit, was much stronger than the NO lobby. Yes, hunters won the referendum; but they also now know for sure that they have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Maltese – certainly on spring hunting. Already most birds are protected. Already the number of birds that can be shot is curtailed. The shift in the balance of opinion will, with time, sway even more strongly towards conservationist and environmentalist values. The Campaign for the Abolition of Spring Hunting should feel vindicated by the referendum result.
Second, the smart political victor in all this is neither a hunter nor an environmentalist.
It is the Prime Minister. He was quick to seize the initiative, confirming that an abrogative referendum would take place as soon as the go-ahead was confirmed by the Constitutional Court. He indicated his personal preference (which was in line with his previous statements), while avoiding turning the issue into yet another political contest. By having the referendum date set on the same day as local council elections, he ensured a heavier turnout for both. By having the referendum date set just before the opening of the spring hunting season, he spared the hunting lobby the serious embarrassment of witnessing the violation of regulations prior to the vote, with predicable results on public opinion. But his strong admonishment to hunters to respect the regulations has upped the ante, and switched the current hunting season into a tense demonstration of law enforcement. Bird lovers are gleefully scouring the countryside to track and film transgressors. How many protected birds will be shot ‘by mistake’? And what will the Prime Minister do about it? The hunters’ jubilation last Sunday has been short-lived.
Marie Briguglio - Economics Lecturer, University of Malta
Every result, even if contrary to expectation, indeed because it is contrary, teaches us something. What have we learnt from this campaign?
It has taught us, for instance, that people who stand to lose something will fight much harder than those who stand to gain.
It has also showed us that an English language campaign, such as the campaign by the No movement, has severe limitations in a Maltese speaking-country.
Lastly, the fact that 49 per cent of voters voted against the unsustainable practice of spring hunting has shown that there is a great demand for a better environment.