Yes victory: a poisoned chalice for Muscat

In political life there are moments of rupture. And we may well be assisting to one of those rare political moments when people have an epiphany.

For many liberals, their rupture with the PN was the divorce referendum, which saw the PN officially supporting the anti-divorce campaign. The 2011 referendum campaign created a rift between the PN and the intelligentsia of the theatre, the arts and the media. And even though the PN was largely absent from the campaign, its leader had sealed his fate with liberal voters by refusing to vote for the bill. 

For both enlightened liberals and conservatives, it may well be that the hunting referendum will be their moment of rupture with the Labour government of Joseph Muscat, for whom the hunters’ victory could very well be a poisoned chalice. For while Muscat has won the eternal gratitude of the hunters' lobby, he may well have lost the good will of others irked by his repeated declarations in favour of spring hunting during the campaign.

Spring hunting was retained thanks to the huge turnout in pro-hunting regions and a strong Yes vote in Labour-leaning districts. But Muscat, who supported the right to the derogation and whose party did not shy away from supporting local pockets of hunters, could well have lost his standing amongst a strategic category of voters and those with cultural capital.

Muscat is aware of this ‘predicament’ – yesterday he was careful to send a strong message to ‘no’ voters by saying the referendum win was “one more chance” to hunters and promised he will shut down the season if “substantial” illegalities take place. 

He was far more convincing than PN leader Simon Busuttil, who pathetically spoke to the nation through a recorded interview in which he ignored the pain felt by most PN rank and file voters. It was, in some ways, another Gonzi moment: like him, his predecessor had a similarly pre-recorded reaction to the divorce referendum.

Busuttil should have sent a message to No voters. But instead he ignored their pain and sent a message to hunters… even if the latter will always remain grateful to Muscat.

Irrespectively of Busuttil, Muscat faces a problem with voters for two reasons.

First of all, the ‘no’ voters have a problem with spring hunting – not with other illegalities. That is, they specifically voted against the killing of quail and turtle dove during the breeding season. And spring hunting, banned by EU law, continued only through Malta’s unilateral derogation, which is itself only upheld through dubious possibly illegal information supplied by hunters themselves. By supporting the Yes campaign, Muscat lends his name to the “illegality” he denounces.

Secondly, Muscat promised he would not interfere in the campaign, and that while he will be voting ‘yes’ his party will not take a position. In reality Muscat declared his vote four times, twice in the strategic Gozo district.

And while people were still voting, Labour Party president Daniel Jose Micallef declared he had voted ‘yes’ on Facebook (the status has since been deleted). Parliamentary secretary for animal rights Roderick Galdes – now the junior minister for hunting – reiterated his ‘yes’ vote on the eve of the election.

Clearly, Labour activists were giving logistical support to the Yes camp. The message to Labour voters was that a vote for hunting was a vote for Joseph. And unlike Micallef’s deleted FB status, this impression will be difficult to erase from memory.

In the aftermath of the vote, Muscat’s new discursive spin is that of expecting “balance” on environmental issues… as if one can accept that shooting birds while breeding is a ‘balanced’, ecologically sound practice.

In the continued sanitisation of politics, Muscat depicts hunters and environmentalists as a ‘Punch and Judy’ show, giving the impression that he yearns for a conflict-free society where people put principles aside to make his life better.

Balance is a word that goes beyond the hunting issue.

It’s the same magic word PN governments used to justify obscenities like the extension of building boundaries.

Muscat appears to reach out to No voters, but in the aftermath he will push ahead with his plan to deregulate planning legislation.

Next on the agenda will be the major decisions like land reclamation, the Gozo airstrip, a new Structure Plan for planning, the planning amnesty, and the extension of building boundaries.

But Muscat now risks a greater mobilisation on all these issues because the people who care are now angrier. It’s this cold shower that wakes people up from their slumber. The silver lining is found in the ridiculous pseudo-military attire hunters donned when they took to the streets to celebrate.