The business of politics is much maligned as being a dirty one. I beg to differ, otherwise I would find it difficult to justify to myself why I bother to follow events and try to stay at arms’ length and objective in forming my opinion.

Politics is, after all, the process by which democracy – the right of people to choose their leaders – can function and it should be an honourable activity. But sometimes I do just wonder...

The spring hunting issue currently being dealt with by the Government with the EU Commission has brought to the fore a certain lack of ethical behaviour from certain exponents who I would have loved to believe should be above lowering themselves in order to gain attention.

I am not a hunter myself, and if asked to vote on the issue would definitely vote against it. I have always felt a certain admiration for the determined way in which Alternattiva Demokratika have been consistent in their anti-hunting stance. Consistency is a merit not very common in politics, so its presence in our political David has earned them my respect.

However, last week’s developments and pronouncements have managed to leave me with a bitter taste in my mouth and led me to query the intentions behind these pronouncements.

Allow me to explain to what I am referring. The government which has, over the last few years, been trying to perform a delicate balancing act between hunters and environmentalists (all Maltese, incidentally, so with the right to be represented), has made it amply clear for quite some time now that it will defend its case for spring hunting in the European court, but will accept the verdict and obey it.

The explanation of the process, for those of us who were bothered, has been almost pedantic in its detail, with the end result that I have been convinced that it is not the Government’s intention to defy the rulings of the court and subject us to any fines.

This has been clearly stated and declared in no uncertain terms, and yet for two consecutive days, Alternattiva people, first Carmel Cacopardo, then none other that Arnold Cassola, have spoken about Malta being fined.

An article written by the latter struck me as almost wishing for Malta to be fined, in order for the chance to say “I told you so”! The slapping of a hefty fine on Malta would prove us right, so let us all be fined, so to speak!

Now that is nothing less than childish! If the European courts are to decide on the issue, then let all parties shut up, accept the verdict and act accordingly.

However much I cannot stand the practice of killing birds for pleasure, I will not be happy to see Malta fined just for the perverse satisfaction of gaining a political point.

I would be more than happy to see the Government lose its case in Brussels, but would then expect it to keep its word and comply. I would be extremely disappointed if the case is won and spring hunting allowed, but would, as an individual, have to lump it.

It’s almost exciting, although I’m quite optimistic of the outcome – that spring hunting will be stopped by the EU court, the Government will accept the decision, there will be no fines for Malta and we’ll all live happy and peaceful springs ever after!

However, I have to say that I have been extremely disappointed by the behaviour of the exponents of Alternattiva. Political parties, however small, should have at the forefront of their reasoning and intentions the good of the country and all its people.

They should not allow themselves to be tempted into being incorrectly sensationalist just to attract attention. And Alternattiva is still too politically young to go down that road already.