A Yes victory: the consequences

The hunting lobby: a remarkable feat

The hunting lobby emerges stronger. The result gives democratic legitimacy not only to the killing of two species of birds during the breeding season in clear breach of EU directives but also to the  political influence of the hunting lobby. For the hunting lobby this represents an incredible feat. 

One major factor, which may have been ignored by the no side, was the strength of kinship loyalties, with a number of voters voting against a referendum, which took something away from relatives or friends. Moreover hunters have succeeded in building an effective coalition of hobbyists, which carried the day in rural Malta.

Not only have hunters defied opinion polls but also they have challenged the dominant perception that the majority of the Maltese resents the hunting lobby.

Not only have hunters defied opinion polls but also they have challenged the dominant perception that the majority of the Maltese resents the hunting lobby.

Yet the result also increases pressure on the hunting lobby not to defy the law by shooting on protected birds. Still, although hunters may be keen on respecting their part of the deal, avoiding embarrassing government by illegalities conducted during the next season, they are now in a stronger position to resist any further restrictions on their hobby and to win new concessions like the government’s decision to reopen the trapping season.

It will be interesting to see whether the make over of the pro hunting lobby conducted during the campaign will outlast the referendum. Interestingly while before the result Lino Farrugia took a back seat as Kathleen Grima took a prominent one, he was very visible when the result was announced. 

The environmental lobby: A demoralising blow

Clearly the environmental lobby emerges weakened by the referendum result.

The result may have consequences, which go well beyond the hunting issue. It also sends the message in favour a “balance” clearly tilted in favour of hunters and other lobbies. For if a majority of Maltese have rejected the basic ecological principle that birds should not be killed in the breeding season, it is very hard to imagine popular opposition when it comes to more complicated issues like land reclamation, Armier, the Gozo airstrip and new policies guiding planning and development. 

on the positive side the environmental lobby has shown an ability to mobilise nearly half the electorate

Yet on the positive side the environmental lobby has shown an ability to mobilise nearly half the electorate despite the stand taken by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in favour of spring hunting.

Joseph Muscat: The eternal winner

Muscat has once again managed to win the day for a cause, which he supported.

Muscat’s repeated declarations prior to the campaign that he would vote yes must have been one of the greatest factors leading to the victory of the hunting lobby. The hunting lobby is in debt towards the PM and this makes him stronger in controlling illegalities.

But the Yes victory may be a poisoned chalice for Muscat due to the embitterment of no voters who may now feel that the PM and his party had a big role in mobilising Yes voters.

Muscat has once again managed to win the day for a cause, which he supported.

In his first speech reacting to the result, Muscat did reach out to this category of voters arguing that he and other Yes voters were simply giving hunters the last opportunity to clamp down on abuses. Still Muscat made it very clear that he expects environmentalists to draw the lessons and subscribe to a more balanced approached. “Balance” will be probably invoked on other issues pitting environmentalists against other lobby groups.

Simon Busuttil: Irrelevant to the result

Busuttil’s decision to vote ‘yes’ may have had a role in the lower turn out in Nationalist leaning districts. Busuttil failed to give leadership to PN voters who in the vast majority leaned towards the No side.

But one may well argue that Busuttil’s failure to take a stance against hunting prevented Muscat from turning the referendum into a partisan battle in which Busuttil’s low trust rating may have penalised the No side.

Busuttil’s failure to take a stance against hunting prevented Muscat from turning the referendum into a partisan battle

Busuttil must be credited for keeping his word not to interfere further in the campaign after declaring his intention to vote Yes. He may also feel vindicated by the result. But clearly hunters do not owe their victory to the PN leader.

At best Busuttil emerges unharmed by the referendum. But he failed to score any points with either side.

Alternattiva Demokratika: A bitter defeat

The Green Party has seen one of its main platforms rejected by a slight majority of voters.

The Greens may well find consolation that the stance advocated by a 2% party has found the support of 49% of voters. But for the first time the Greens who previously prided themselves of being on the right side of history in the divorce and EU referenda now find themselves on the losing side.

Still they may benefit from the bitterness now felt by environmentalist voters. But although the Yes victory may be a wake up call for green voters, in the short term they are more likely to become more demoralised and detached from political life. 

The independent media: The limits of influence

All three Maltese independent newspapers have declared their editorial line against spring hunting.

The stance probably was vital in swaying voters on an issue where both political leaders were in favour of hunting. Ultimately newspapers provided the no camp with the only solid platform of support in a country where voters are generally mobilised by political parties and were civil society is still weak.

Ultimately newspapers provided the No camp with the only solid platform of support in a country where voters are generally mobilised by political parties and were civil society is still weak.

Probably the stance also reflected that of the majority of their readers. But the result does expose the limits of the influence, which is credited to the media in general.

In his otherwise dignified speech Joseph Muscat sent a disturbing message by calling on the independent media to draw the lessons of the result and to be more “humble”.

The limits of the influence of the media is already amply clear by other issues like immigration, where the humanitarian stance of newspapers contrasts with rampant xenophobia in the country at large. Political parties and leaders and other factors like kinship and partisan loyalties may ultimately be more influential than the media especially in more rural areas.

In fact the result may well reinforce the divide between urban liberal Malta which is more likely to be influenced by the independent media and rural Malta and Gozo where other networks like kinship ties hold a greater sway.