Spring hunting referendum: what is at stake?

The hunting lobby: endgame for the FKNK?

For the hunting lobby led by the militant Federazzjoni Nassaba Konservazzjonisti (FKNK) a defeat in the anti spring hunting referendum will signify an epochal event which will put an end to their power to blackmail politicians on both sides as they have done since the 1996 election, in which the lobby had signed an electoral pact with Labour. 

Present leaders of the hunting lobby such as Lino Farrugia will be blamed for failing to prevent a catastrophic result for the lobby.  

More moderate elements may take over to ensure that extremists do not endanger the autumn season.

One fundamental choice for the hunting lobby is whether to boycott the referendum or to actively campaign for a "yes" (in favour of retaining spring hunting) vote.  

The hunting lobby may bank on voting fatigue on referendum day and the fact that hunting is not a do or die issue for most voters.  

In those localities where local elections will not be taking place, hunters may scare off voters by being visibly present in front of polling booths, taking note of who turns up to vote. This could deter some people from voting. But it could also be counter productive in a modern democratic society.

Campaigning actively for a "yes" vote would be the honourable thing to do. Hunters may choose to present rational arguments in favour of sustainable hunting, such as by pointing out that the hunting of quails and turtledoves does not in itself significantly endanger bird populations. They may try to put the argument on a more rational plane as environmentalists resort to emotions in a bid to mobilise voters.

They may also make an effort to send an unequivocal message to the electorate of zero tolerance towards illegal poaching. Yet voters may see through this campaign having realised that it is the spring hunting season which offers a good cover for the illegal activities of illegal poachers. In the absence of this cover it will be much easier for the police to spot hunters breaking the law. 

One major advantage for the hunting lobby is that the referendum will be taking place before the next spring hunting season.  This means that the pro hunting campaign will not be marred by incidents during the open season.  Moreover hunters will be highly motivated to vote against the abolition of spring hunting as it would that this year’s season will not open.  

If they manage to thwart the referendum hunters would have accomplished an incredible feat, which would further strengthen the power of their lobby group.  Their power over political parties would become even stronger than before. Probably illegal poachers will also be emboldened to continue with their criminal activities as before.  

BirdLife and environmentalists: A Maltese spring?

In the case of a victory BirdLife would have accomplished one of its historical aims, that of ensuring that Malta abides by EU legislation, which bans spring hunting. But a defeat would be catastrophic for the bird protection lobby. Politicians would read this as a sign that the electorate does not care about birds and the environmentalists in general.  

Moreover the government may also conclude that if the environmentalists can be defeated on hunting, an issue where they can appeal to emotions, they can be rolled over on far less emotional issues such as land reclamation, the Gozo airstrip and land use policies.

On the other hand a "no" victory could signal the birth of a hegemonic block opposed to the government’s current environmental policies and to subservience to certain lobbies.  

The PN’s stance in the referendum will determine its relationship with this civil society movement.

It would also mean that apart from the parliamentary opposition, the government would be facing a vibrant civil society, which on its own can bring about change.  

This may herald the advent of a Maltese spring where civil society can emerge as a political protagonist with a stake in determining the agenda of the country. The government may become more reluctant to anger environmental NGOs and their supporters, whose votes will no longer be taken for granted.

Ensuring a 51% quorum will be a major challenge for the coalition against spring hunting. The coalition may also lack the resources to mount an effective campaign even if it can rely on the editorial support of Malta’s three main English newspapers.  But it needs to get its act in order to mobilise the electorate on an issue low in its agenda of priorities.

Joseph Muscat: Will he take a back seat?

A victory for the coalition against spring hunting in the referendum would mean that spring hunting will be abolished on his watch despite having signed a pre-electoral pact with hunters aimed at improving their situation.   

This may invite criticism from hunters that he did not do much to help their cause despite pre-electoral promises. Hunters know that only strong backing from the Labour party would give them a fighting chance in the referendum.

But a "no" (against spring hunting) victory would also mean that Muscat would be relieved from this hot potato and contentious issue with environmentalists. On the other hand if the referendum does not pass either because of a no vote or if voting does not reach the quorum, spring hunting will remain an issue for years to come even if it may take long for environmentalist to recover from the blow.  

In fact, if environmentalists are defeated on an emotional issue like hunting, the government will feel strong enough to push ahead on other issues where environmentalists enjoy less popular support.

The greatest dilemma for Muscat is what role to play during the referendum campaign itself. This is because hunting brings to the fore one of the contradictions in Muscat’s block, that between red neck hunters and the liberal bourgeois vote for whom he went as far as banning animal circuses.  

Muscat may choose to wash his hands by leaving it up to the people to decide. He may also play to all tunes, allowing individuals within his party to take a different stance on the issue. This would contrast with last year’s MEP election when various Labour MEP candidates supported a petition aimed at derailing the referendum and Muscat himself declared his support for spring hunting. So far not a single Labour exponent has pronounced himself or herself against spring hunting.  

Still with surveys showing that a majority of Labour voters tend to support the hunters’ lobby, it is highly unlikely that any party officials will support the campaign to abolish spring hunting. 

If Muscat takes the backseat hunters will conclude that Muscat has abandoned them even if Muscat may appease them by other concessions and by defying the European Commission on trapping.

Hunters may well recall that Labour Party candidates in last year’s MEP elections were actively collecting signatures for a petition aimed at thwarting the referendum.  Muscat was himself ambiguous when asked on the petition during the campaign. If Muscat abandons them now, they may never forgive him.

Moreover if Muscat does not stand for them in the referendum, hunters could also punish him by abstaining in local elections, which will be held on the same day as the referendum.  

He may choose to actively campaign on their behalf but this poses two risks, the risk of being defeated for the first time and the risk of alienating liberal voters.   

The consequences for Muscat ending on the losing side are not to be underestimated.  For Muscat has so far won on every electoral appointment, including the divorce referendum where he boasted of being on the right side of history.  Still if he does campaign, environmentalists should not underestimate his persuasive powers.

Muscat may try to strike a balance by taking a public but personal stance against the abolition of hunting in spring while promising to stop the spring hunting season if it is marred by episodes of illegal poaching as he did in September when he stopped the autumn season. Whether this will be enough to appease hunters who supported him in the general and MEP elections remains to be seen. 

Muscat’s decision of holding the referendum before the hunting season starts instead of during or after the season, favours the hunting lobby as it avoids the risk of illegal poaching marring the pro hunting campaign. 

Simon Busuttil: To take a stand or not

For Busuttil much depends on what stand he will take in the referendum. If he remains non-committal he will not reap any benefits while hunters will still perceive him as the person who betrayed promises made before the 2003 EU referendum.

On the other hand if Busuttil takes a clear stance in favour of the anti spring hunting campaign he may score points among liberal voters, especially in a situation where Muscat supports the hunting lobby.

But in so doing Busuttil risks losing those hunters who support the PN even if it is doubtful whether the party can lose more votes on this issue than it has done already.

He will also be attacked for going back on the promises made by the party to hunters in the past.

But if Busuttil takes the back seat on this issue, by reiterating his stance for a more restricted spring hunting season, he will perpetuate the perception that he is not a decisive leader.  

The appointment of Charlo Bonnici as spokesperson for hunting suggests that Busuttil’s intention is to take some sort of stand. For it would be useless to have a spokesperson on hunting, if he does not express an opinion on the referendum.

One legitimate argument Busuttil could use to justify not taking a stance is that he will be doing that so as not to politicise this issue. 

Even some environmentalists may be wary of Busuttil’s support, as it could alienate Labour voters, who are essential for the referendum to pass. If Busuttil is associated with the anti spring hunting campaign Labour voters may refrain from supporting the coalition against spring hunting.

But Muscat’s support for the divorce campaign indicates otherwise. For although the PL did not officially take a stance, Muscat’s personal stance helped a lot in mobilising voters but did not deter liberal Nationalists from voting yes. Moreover if PN voters do not turn up to vote there is a risk that the 50% quorum will not be achieved.

If the referendum passes and Busuttil would have remained silent, Busuttil would have missed the boat.  

If the referendum fails after a campaign in which Busuttil remained silent, environmentalists and anti hunting voters may well blame him for that.   

Arnold Cassola: losing another battle cry?

In the case of an anti spring hunting victory, AD would risk losing one of its main rallying calls as happened after the introduction of divorce. Yet once again AD will be vindicated for being on the right side of history in the third consecutive referendum after the one on EU membership and divorce.

AD would be the only party which was on the winning side on all three occasions.

In the case of a "yes" (in favour of retaining the derogation) victory AD will be blamed for helping push environmental NGOs into a risky gamble. For it was AD which first floated this idea and set the referendum engine in motion, despite the reluctance of some of the other environmental groups.  Still, if successful, the referendum will prove the continued relevance of a party which changed history despite not being represented in parliament.