[ANALYSIS] The hunting games

Ever since former prime minister Dom Mintoff introduced the first regulations on hunting in the 1970s, the hunting lobby has been blackmailing the political class with their vote ever since.

A pre-electoral pact signed with the Labour Party before the 1996 election, following a tightening of regulations by the PN government, may well have had a crucial impact in Labour’s ephemeral victory at the time. This was followed by a pact signed with the PN ahead of the 1998 election, which proved crucial in securing the silence of this lobby in the EU membership referendum.

The derogation on spring hunting from the EU’s Birds Directive has now come to symbolise the political might of this lobby. But a 45,000-strong petition to demand an abrogative referendum on the legal notice authorising spring hunting, championed by the Green Party and a coalition of NGOs, has changed the dynamics of this battle.

BirdLife Malta's executive director Steve Micklewright, holding up a letter from Home Affairs Minister's former legal firm, which assisted hunters in making a police complaint

With surveys showing an overwhelming majority against this practice, the political class is being faced with a dilemma: whether to ditch past commitments to hunters or to stand by them irrespective of the popular will.

Labour’s commitments to hunters
Inexplicably, despite riding high in election polls, the Labour Party signed a vague pre-electoral agreement with the hunting lobby on the eve of the 2013 general election.

PN-leaning hunters were probably identified as one of those volatile categories of voters which could shift to Labour, and keen on securing the largest majority possible, give Joseph Muscat’s party a comfortable majority in parliament.

The six-point agreement, signed on the eve of the election, speaks of the “correct” application of EU derogations on spring hunting and the trapping of songbirds.  Labour also promised that once in government, it would also introduce fixed dates for hunting seasons in autumn and spring, and a consultation process would also take place to remove uncertainty and ambiguity from hunting laws and regulations.

Both parties to the agreement made it clear that the EU package “cannot and will not be reopened”.  

The agreement was the result of two years of technical discussions between the Labour Party and the hunters’ federation, led by Labour MP Michael Falzon, who is a hunter himself.

After being elected, the Labour government removed some of the restrictions imposed on hunters like the wearing of an armband, the payment of a special licence for spring hunting, and lifted the ban on hunting on Sundays and public holidays. In a balancing act following outrage over various episodes of illegal hunting, Labour drastically increased fines on illegal hunting.
But the referendum on spring hunting risks upsetting this delicate balance.

The options for Labour
Labour has three choices: ditch hunters and abolish spring hunting to avoid a likely humiliating defeat in a referendum, support hunters in the referendum, take a back seat on the issue or try to avoid the referendum to retain the status quo. Each option represents a poisoned chalice for Labour leader Joseph Muscat, who has to weigh between losing an ally and alienating the general electorate.

Option 1: Ditching hunters
Averting the referendum by stopping spring hunting would win Muscat brownie points in the liberal press and among young and more liberal voters who view hunting as an anachronistic practice and resent the political blackmail of an arrogant lobby.  Ditching hunters would be in line with Muscat’s reformist streak on other issues like civil unions, where he is not afraid of challenging traditionalists.

FKNK CEO Lino Farrugia

Still, when it comes to purely electoral considerations, Muscat may well consider lobbies like hunters and fireworks factory enthusiasts as being in same league of gay activists – a pool of highly volatile voters who can switch sides. For while a silent majority is opposed to spring hunting, hunters are more likely to change their vote whenever their “hobby” is at stake. Muscat may also be wary of the attitude taken by the PN to this issue, fully knowing that the hunting lobby may switch sides at the first sign of political betrayal. 

The cost of ditching hunters would be that of being accused of taking a u-turn and creating a resentful category of voters who would punish him for a broken promise.   

Option 2: Support hunters in the referendum
Although opinion polls show a majority against hunting, the Labour Party can still exercise considerable influence on its voters. If Labour actively campaigns for the hunting lobby – by, for example, calling on its supporters to abstain in the referendum – it can make life difficult for the anti-hunting lobby, which may find it difficult to reach a quorum. In fact, in the absence of a 50% turnout, the referendum will not pass. Yet the cost of this option would be that of associating the supposedly progressive Labour Party with a regressive lobby bent on protecting its privileges at all costs.

While the Labour Party’s support may well secure the loyalty of hunters in the next election, it may have a corrosive effect on Muscat’s hegemonic ambitions in the same way as the association with ultra conservative elements had tarnished the PN’s name during the divorce referendum. If he wants to retain the support of liberals Muscat cannot afford to be associated with one of the most disreputable lobbies in the country.  

Option 3: Taking the backseat
The Labour leader may well decide to take the back seat, formally reiterating his position in favour of spring hunting but refraining from any active campaigning in the referendum, thus avoiding any association with the antics of the hunting lobby. 

But the risk of this strategy is that hunters might still expect Muscat to honour his pre-electoral pledge to retain spring hunting by supporting them in what they regard as a crucial battle. He may even lack control over Labour candidates and MPs who may campaign in favour of the hunting lobby for their own personal political gain, especially in districts with a strong hunting presence.

Muscat may also try to portray himself as a moderate between “extremists” on both sides, and thus encourage his supporters to abstain in the referendum. But he may find it difficult to remain aloof of a campaign which is bound to attract the attention of the media.

Option 4: Thwarting the referendum
Delaying the referendum through technical hitches and an overzealous scrutiny of signatures may buy Muscat time, but after all formalities are cleared, he will finally he will have to face a stark choice.

The only option left to avoid this inevitable choice would be that of changing the referendum law to prevent it from taking place.

On Tuesday Muscat did not exclude giving consideration to a petition by hunters to change the referendum law to stop the hunting referendum from taking place.

Asked directly whether his government was actually considering changing the law as the hunters had demanded, Muscat said he would wait for the petition.

“There is an ongoing petition by the hunters asking for a change in the law and we will see” adding that his position “is clearly in favour of spring hunting”.

But a day later, Muscat tried to clear the waters by declaring that that the referendum process for the abrogation of spring hunting, was not something that was “at a politician’s discretion,” a declaration which indicates that there is no intention on Muscat’s part to stop or derail the train set in motion by the 40,000-strong petition invoking the referendum, according to all legal requirements.

This begs the question: why does Muscat feel the need to “see” the results of the ongoing petition by hunters which has absolutely no legal validity?

Still, Muscat’s latest declaration contrast with MEP candidate Cyrus Engerer’s support for a petition calling for the protection of “minority” rights from referenda like the one proposed by the Coalition Against Spring Hunting. For the only way this petition will succeed is through a law passed in parliament which would clearly amount to “political discretion” which Muscat is excluding.

In a way, Muscat’s declaration means that the hunters’ petition is a useless exercise with no bearing on the referendum.

By equating the rights of emarginated and excluded minorities to the privileges of a lobby which has exercised political blackmail for the past three decades, Engerer risks alienating a large segment of the population – especially the young and the educated –who are more likely to oppose hunting.

By entertaining speculation on this issue as Muscat himself did on Tuesday, Labour risks transforming the issue of hunting in to one of democracy. This could backfire on Muscat, as any move in this direction could be interpreted as one which tampers with everyone’s democratic rights to appease a lobby. This would seriously undermine Muscat’s hard-earned democratic credentials and raise the spectre of an authoritarian government. Of all three options, thwarting the referendum could be the most damaging for Muscat.

The PN’s commitments to hunting
Simon Busuttil is clearly conditioned by the commitments he made to hunters to retain spring hunting when he led the Malta EU Information Centre before the EU referendum. Before the last election, the party was not bound by any agreement with the hunting lobby but made it clear that it would continue to defend the derogation on spring hunting as it had done when in government.

But in a quick question-and-answer session in a debate hosted by journalist Hermann Grech on the eve of the last election former PN leader Lawrence Gonzi replied: “yes, if need be” to a question on whether he would hold a referendum on spring hunting.  Muscat replied with a categorical no.  

The choices for the PN
With the PN already committed to respect the results of the referendum, the choices for the PN is whether to call a yes, a no or to abstain from taking a position in a prospective referendum.

Option 1: Supporting the Yes campaign
With the hunting lobby clearly aligned to the PL, the PN stands to lose less than the PL if it comes out in favour of the abolition of spring hunting. Surely, open support for the “yes” cause could further cement the alliance between hunters and Labour, but the PN may stand to gain by Labour’s association with hunters among the same category of voters alienated by its conservative stance on several other issues. This is because surveys clearly show that younger educated voters are the most likely to be opposed to hunting.

The only major drawback for the PN is that its support for the yes camp may be seen as a dramatic u-turn from its position in favour of spring hunting and a personal u-turn by Simon Busuttil. But the PN may well argue that hunters have been given a chance through the derogation on spring hunting, a chance that they squandered through the persistence of illegalities. Ultimately, hunting may represent a game changer for the PN as divorce was for the PL. The hunting referendum would enable Busuttil to put his party on the right side of history and Muscat on the wrong side of history.

Option 2: Supporting the no vote
This is the least likely option for the PN, as it would alienate a vast majority of PN voters who support the ban on spring hunting. Moreover, it is clear that what the hunting lobby wants is not support in the referendum but a cancellation of the referendum. The PN may support the hunting cause by urging its supporters to abstain but this would backfire, as the PN electorate is less likely to follow party directives than Labour’s more cohesive core vote.

Option 3: Refraining from taking a stance
The PN may be tempted to take a middle path, give full freedom to its members to vote as they deem fit, while tacitly supporting the referendum in its media and resisting attempts to obstruct it. Yet, such a position would invite criticism that the party is spineless and unable to take a position.

One way of coming out of the quandary would be if leading figures in the PN take a position in favour of the referendum in the same way as Joseph Muscat campaigned for the introduction of divorce while his party formally abstained from taking a position. But as happened with civil unions, Busuttil may be wary of taking a position himself and would end up taking the easy way out: abstaining from the debate. But in this way, the party will fail to score points on an issue where the PL risks losing badly.

The hunting demographics
A survey conducted by MaltaToday in July showed that 60% would vote against hunting in spring in a referendum.

A considerable number of respondents (12%) replied that they are either not interested or are undecided. But only 28% would vote against removing hunting in spring.

Significantly, 78% of university-educated respondents, 71% of those aged between 18 and 34 and 63% of PN voters would vote against spring hunting.

On the other hand, a smaller majority against spring hunting exists among the secondary educated (56%), persons aged 35 to 54 (52%) and PL voters (49%).