A referendum’s gamble

The way this spring hunting referendum is evolving is rather odd, to say the least. While feelings are aplenty on both sides, there seems to be a lack of informative debate. 

As a parting shot (forgive my unintended pun) a recent debate on Dissett came close to some discussion, but it was rather dry and predictable. This predictability had nothing to do with the invited guests. As Michael Falzon rightly said, there is still a lack of information and the statistics used on both sides appear questionable. I agree. But then again, is this only a matter of information? And if the voters do need to be more informed, what is it that they really need to know?

The more I reflect on this, the less I am convinced that this referendum is simply about hunting rights or the protection of migrating birds. Neither is this just a referendum about the environment and who should have the last word on who owns the countryside and what happens in it. 

Without sounding dramatic, I echo what others have already said, while adding that this referendum represents an exercise that has a lot to do with the evolution of Maltese democracy and what is at stake moves far beyond hunters, birds, environmentalists or all of them put together.   

The usual bickering

A lot of attention is directed at how our beloved MPs are intent on voting, after their two leaders went public favouring a Yes vote. Leaving aside the affront on logic and the different efforts by which some prominent “heavy weights” are justifying their intent, I was particularly irritated how some insisted on having a go at their opponents while declaring that they were all voting Yes. 

While I am normally unfazed by this kind of bickering because this has become a national pastime, on this occasion I cannot understand the fuss because everyone knows that both the PL and PN have consistently threaded carefully when it came to hunting – being somewhat convinced that among hunters there are enough votes to determine the outcome of a general election.

However the assumption of such a powerful hunters lobby does present another oddity in that it seems to me that by the same argument, parties should start considering an “environmentalist lobby”, which as we now know, was strong enough to garner enough signatures to trigger this referendum. What about their votes? Aren’t there enough to also determine the outcome of an election? 

Be careful what you wish for

Even if notionally there are enough environmentalist votes to neuter the hunters’ vote, the attitude that we got from the two parties in parliament cannot be limited to voting patterns. This is evident from how their big wigs are behaving while juggling their argument for a Yes vote. As Raphael Vassallo rightly suggests in his MaltaToday article “Chronicle of a disaster foretold,” there is something other than votes on their mind.

Raphael’s article suggests that the PN and PL are wary of this referendum because power is being taken away from them. To an extent I would agree. However there is something even more worrisome for those who actually launched the referendum. 

In English we say, “be careful what you wish for” – because it could well happen! I say this not to sound defeatist, but by way of objectively assessing the possible implications of such a referendum. Sometimes I think that though I regard this referendum as a profound shift in democratic affairs, I wish it never made it through the Courts. 

I don’t say this because I agree with the hunters. I often wish this referendum to disappear because the stakes are too high for democracy and what is being gambled moves beyond hunting or the environment. 

As I see it, in its unique way and because of its specific contexts, this referendum has walked Maltese democracy into a double-bind which cannot be totally unravelled, and which becomes more sinister if the Yes vote were to win, though a No vote would not guarantee a conclusive solution either. 

Double Bind(s)

I call this a double-bind and not a dilemma because apart from high stakes, the consequences of either a Yes or a No vote are very unclear and do not bode well for democracy, even when this is the most empowering form of democratic processes that Malta has been presented with to date.

It stands to reason that while one could garner enough votes to launch a referendum, the same number of votes is never going to guarantee, let alone secure or indicate, that this referendum could be won. The question is: Could the environmentalists afford to lose what they are gambling? The hunters associations seem to think that even if they lose to a No vote, they will accept the result but they are not excluding other routes by which they will strengthen their lobby. After all, hunting is not being abolished and there is plenty of time for a hunting lobby to sustain its pursuits. Also let’s not forget that the Yes campaign has both the PN and PL leadership’s support. 

Some would retort: Make sure the No vote wins. But still, even if the No wins, in what way does this effectively weaken what comes across as a strong lobby that holds the PN and PL to ransom? 

Then again, if the environmentalists win, the PN and PL would realize that they have another lobby to reckon with. But what are the consequences? Are we suggesting that lobbies should hold parties and governments to ransom? Are we intent on developing a democracy based on lobbies? And should a referendum be allowed to degenerate into an instrument for even more lobbying and counter-lobbying? 

Being pragmatic some would say: that’s the name of the game and we should play it. It’s politics. Just as there is a developers’ lobby, a hunters’ lobby, a lobby for vested interests, a religious lobby and whatever one could imagine possible, then what’s wrong with an environmentalist lobby, and maybe a lobby against poverty, for social justice, for private or public education…? 

While at face value this sounds like fair game, it is a distortion of democracy. When we begin to speak of rights and how these are won we cannot equate this with lobbies and their vested interests. If we are to argue that civil rights are won thanks to a government held at ransom by a lobby instead of a case made for a right that is deemed democratic by a group of people within a democratic forum, then the argument is lost before it even begins because it remains subjected to vested interests. 

Could we argue that any referendum prompted by a strong cause – in this case an environmental cause – is a risk worth taking? Could we risk becoming a democracy taken over by lobbies? Is there a danger that this referendum would tie democracy in knots without allowing other issues to come forward in future referenda because it degenerates the referendum into a war between lobbies? 

Beyond birds, twigs and “rednecks” 

Let me state clearly that unless the No campaign is careful it will not just lose this referendum, but it would have gambled the possibility of future referenda. I am not saying the No campaign should not have campaigned for such a referendum. On the contrary, I am saying that here what is at stake is not just a take on Spring Hunting, but a gamble on whether referenda of this sort could give people more forms of empowerment or take a wrong turn and damage such instruments for a long time to come. 

Everyone knows that parliamentarians, especially those in large parties, are uncomfortable with referenda because as Raphael Vassallo rightly said in his article, they lose their control. So the fact that both the PN and PL seem to be reluctant to “politicize” this referendum appears to be a good thing. But here is another double bind: by not “politicizing” this referendum (which actually should mean that the Parties do not want this to become a partisan referendum), the PN and PL are pushing back this process into the thick of a highly politicized territory which could have strong consequences on how future democratic processes work.    

Because of the deeply polarized lobbies that are involved in this referendum, there is a certain complexion that is more prone to fall into serious contradictions – even more than any other referendum that Malta had since the 1950s. If you thought that the Integration referendum messed up any logic when a win for Integration campaigned for by Mintoff, led the same Mintoff to campaign for Independence; or how Sant forfeited any chance of winning a General Election by sticking to his anti-EU guns even when a Referendum indicated otherwise; this referendum could be even more anomalous in terms of the consequences of its results.   

***

My take is that for the No campaign to win, they have to do far more than simply talk about birds and twigs and “rednecks”. When the Anti-Foxhunting campaigners in Britain began with characterizing foxhunters as a bunch of reactionary “toffs”, their campaign went nowhere. They only won when they jettisoned such stereotypes and appealed to a broader support, which included those who hated blood sports but had no qualms with the aristocracy. It is equally interesting to note that those, in Malta, who want us to believe that hunting is some romantic feature of Malta’s traditional working class culture, are doing a disservice to their cause because they are grossly misrepresenting their case. 

However, beyond birds, hobbies and stereotypes, I would argue that the No campaign has an added responsibility which pertains to the democratic risks that they chose to gamble in this referendum. The fact that they are taking this risk does not render them in any way undemocratic or irresponsible. However the way the campaign is going, seems to be missing the point of such risk and is failing to alert those who regard it as a test case for the referendum per se.  

One cannot generalize and say that one referendum is as good or bad as another. However here I would pose a question: If this referendum is lost to the Yes vote, could one see the probability of other referenda that would, for example, prompt a campaign to substitute the Minimum Wage with a Living Wage? I say it would be very unlikely, though I hope and pray that I am totally wrong.

Anyone who supports the widening of democracy cannot but support the instrument of referenda. A referendum is another opportunity to have the people vote beyond party lines and also show that there are avenues by which one could launch campaigns that are not started from within Parliament. However, while one cannot disagree with this, one must be aware that some referenda carry a high-risk double bind in that the same form of empowerment that they exercise risks going the other way and seriously curb it. 

By this I do not mean that anyone voting Yes is against democracy and anyone voting No is an avowed democrat. That would be an absurd argument even when the Yes camp was against the referendum in the first place.

However I would argue that the reasons for voting No couldn’t be limited to a single issue. Otherwise this campaign is as good as lost for the No campaign. Nor should it be construed as a referendum against hunters, as this will simply confirm what the hunters were arguing in the first place when they tried to halt this referendum in its tracks as undemocratic. 

Here I could see how those voting Yes would disagree with me and say that in effect they are salvaging a democratic right by keeping spring hunting. This may well be the case with spring hunting per se and in isolation. However there is a very clear reason why almost all MPs who declared their intentions are voting Yes. This has nothing to do with the EU, hunting rights, or electoral manifestos. It has to do with the way democracy has hitherto been reserved to parliamentarians and how it could work in the future … with or without referenda of this kind. 

I would say that this one slipped through the net. If there will be other referenda, they would be far more circumspect and tightly controlled.