I am one who strongly believes that politics needs to be authentic to have credibility. When authenticity starts waning, the electorate starts losing hope and trust in its politicians whilethe lattercommence to lose their convincing tone and their political message becomes obtuse.
This is the risk that both Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil are now facing after their stand on the hunting referendum. I am sure that they made their political calculations, before pronouncing themselves on the matter. Their choice was governed by reasoning rather than emotion. They thought that the chancesthat the referendum on the abolition of spring hunting to pass were rather slim. Thus, they opted for a unified position. In a normal situation, having the two main political leaders expressing the same position would mean that the issue is automatically killed. Both main parties responded by expressing lack of interest on the matter. Unlike what happened in the divorce referendum, the atmosphere is less politically charged. But the unexpected has happened. The “No” vote is taking the lead. At least, this is the impression given in the last survey published by Xarabank.
I am sure that if the “No” vote wins, the image of our political leaders will suffer. At least, the hunters’ lobby was honest in its plight, when itasked the electorate not to go against the wishes or voting desire of the two main party leaders. What the hunters’ lobby did not realize wasthat the electorate has matured. The signs were already there. The last election result was a clear sign of electorate maturity.
Thus, in this scenario, irrespective whether the “Yes” or the “No” vote wins,Simon Busuttil will not get any political advantage from the position taken. On one hand, the polls are showing that Simon Busuttil is the most trusted politician among University students and graduates. He is even more trusted among this group than the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. In itself, this was an interesting revelation. On the other hand, the polls are showing that the graduates and the university students are one of the strongest categories opposing spring hunting. They will be voting “No” in this referendum.
It appears that around 80% of the university students are against spring hunting. I am basing this percentage on the report that appeared on the back page of The Malta Independent,on Thursday, 5th February.
The political implications are multifarious. On one hand, Labour is taking a very strong liberal stand where civil rights are concerned. Yet, when it is a question of hunting, the stand of Labour is extremely conservative. The Catholic Church in Malta, which is normally considered to be conservative, put her weight in favour of the “No” vote. In other words, it has joined the environmentalists, who normally are on the liberal side of politics where civil rights are concerned. However, Labour is not gaining many points with its liberal stand. At least, the University students, who, I am sure are more supportive of Labour’s stand on civil rights, are still behind the PN.
In this scenario, Muscat has only to gain from this issue. The Labour base isstrongly in favour of spring hunting. Therefore by supporting spring hunting, he definitely must have thought of mitigating the damage that thepro-liberal stand of his party was causingtoa section of theelectorate thatistraditionalist and conservative on family matters. Withthis position, Muscat will suffer no losses among the university students. What is interesting at this stage is what is going to be Busuttil’s position with the university students? Will he lose some browniepoints with them?I am sure that his standhas dented his image with this particular group.
Simon Busuttil has ended up supporting Joseph Muscat. At least, he has helped him to limit the collateral damages that Labour’s stand on hunting was destined to have within the party. I am sure that Busuttil’s position will now come to haunt him in the next election. The PN has now realized the mistake. But it is too late. As hadhappened during the last electoral campaign, Dr Eddie Fenech Adami came to the rescue. This shows that the party is in a position of political stress.
Should the “No” vote pass and spring hunting is terminated, the two political leaders will appear the biggest losers. They would have failed to read and interpret correctly the wishes of the Maltese people. Yet, the defeat will be bigger for the Opposition. The Opposition exists to interpret the wishes of the electorate. Should the “Yes” vote win, andspring hunting ismaintained, Busuttil will gain no points. The hunters will credit Labour with their victory. The environmentalists and a section of the PN electorate will never forgive this defeat.
Perhaps,Busuttil’sbiggest contribution to this referendum, by opting for a “Yes” vote, is that he freed a section of the Labour party, which can now express itself more freely. In other words, by showing their opposition to spring hunting, they cannot be accused of supporting the Nationalist Party. Perhaps, this was a scenario that no one was envisaging. But it has happened. The malaise among the Labour grass roots is coming to the fore.Many are now voicing their disdain within Labour against the supposed ‘switchers’ who have been reapingrewards for the past 25 years ofNationalist rule and now, have succeeded to remain on top of the waves due to their publicsupport for Labour.
Thus, this referendum is not only about birds and guns, but also about the trust that the electorate has in our two main political leaders.