[ANALYSIS] Muscat on the democracy rollercoaster

Joseph Muscat’s astute decision to close the hunting season just days after securing a yes victory for hunters in the spring hunting referendum was another taste of Muscat’s unpredictability when cornered.

The same Joseph Muscat whose troops helped in mobilising voters for the referendum, immediately reached out to no voters by promising to stop the season if faced by ‘flagrant’ illegalities.

He immediately understood that his part in securing the “yes” victory risked eroding his trust rating among an influential sector of the electorate, simply because it associated him with a lobby whose antics disgust the middle class, whose support he obsessively courts.

The question many were asking on the social networks was: when does an illegality become flagrant? From the second day of the season people started to demand the closure of the season after hunters shot down a cuckoo and than a lapwing. But probably none of these birds strike the popular imagination, as did the stork shot in autumn, which led Muscat to stop the season last year.

Moreover, climatic conditions contributed to the late arrival of turtledoves and quails. This meant that hunters lacked the cover they needed, and which enabled them to shoot wildly as in past seasons.

There was also the realisation among many hunters that they were just 2,000 votes from seeing the end of spring hunting and perhaps some were heeding the ominous warning by Muscat that he would stop the season if abuse became flagrant. This may have also militated against the rampant abuses of past seasons.

Significantly the death of a few birds seemed to pale in comparison with another tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean: that of hundreds of migrants who lost their life while crossing the sea. Those demanding Muscat to close the season at the first illegality seemed to lack a sense of proportion. 

The flagrancy threshold

Still, illegalities continued to trickle as the days rolled on. An incident which saw a 16-year-old tourist hit by pellets was not enough for Muscat to conclude that the flagrancy threshold had been surpassed.

The first reported shooting of a kestrel followed, and Muscat did not act. Then the perfect incident happened which had all the ingredients of “flagrancy” – a kestrel was shot down and it fell in the grounds of an independent private school, disturbing the peace and quiet of seven-year-old pupils.

Did Muscat have a choice to ignore this? For the media savvy PM, ignoring the incident was not an option. For by “flagrant”, Muscat did not have in mind the ecological impact of illegal hunting, but the kind of media attention which disturbs the peace and quiet of the bourgeois constituency which he is hell-bent not to alienate.

The ingredients in this case were toxic for any politician like Muscat, who likes to be liked on the social networks and hates being cornered by public opinion. 

Muscat’s decision gives us a clear definition of what Muscat understands by flagrant: that kind of abuse, which is spectacular enough to damage his political stature. He simply refused to suffer the price for supporting hunters in the referendum. He could not afford being ridiculed for months for letting the hunters have their way.

Muscat was well aware that for the first time since being elected to power he was facing the first signs of anger and dissent beyond the confines of the PN. Muscat has no fear of confronting the PN, which he likes so much to belittle and confront. But Muscat understands that public opinion, especially when it includes enraged influential parents, can be far more devastating than Simon Busuttil.  

Had Muscat not stopped the season, he risked giving permanence to the rapture felt by many no voters who were previously inclined towards Muscat but who felt aggrieved by his support for hunters. It risked unleashing a civil society movement hostile to his government. It is doubtful whether closing the season three days before it expired was sufficient to appease environmentalists but by closing the season Muscat has kept disgruntlement from evolving into outright dissent.

Carpe Diem

For the closure of the season was not just a decision imposed on Muscat by events. It also provided him with the golden opportunity to make up for the points he lost through his support for the hunting lobby in the referendum.

Muscat once again manages to excel in circumstances where Busuttil is weakest. He is quick to rely on his political instinct to turn potential minefields into opportunities.  While Muscat seizes the moment, Busuttil thinks until it is too late.

Once again he managed to anticipate the opposition, which was not quick enough to call the shots by calling for the closure of the hunting season before Muscat made his announcement. Had the PN issued a statement before Muscat, it would have increased the pressure on the PM and would have entitled the party to take credit for what seemed an inevitable decision.

Instead the opposition was overtaken by events and was left with no choice but to issue a statement to back Muscat’s decision. Unlike Muscat in opposition, Busuttil should be credited for not making any attempt to appeal to the hunters’ disgruntlement.

But the PN lost a golden opportunity to make up for Busuttil’s lukewarm pro spring hunting declaration before the referendum campaign started.

Politics on a rollercoaster

Muscat’s decision was “bold”; in the sense that it showed that the PM has not completely surrendered his soul to the hunting lobby. Muscat has also sent a message to hunters that he is far from being at their mercy. In fact – at least as long as Muscat does not need their vote – it is they who are now at his mercy. 

 The arbitrary decision to close the season three days before it ended does suggest that Muscat has a strong Machiavellian streak. People are increasingly reading through the Muscat script.

Some had already predicted that Muscat would stop the season in its final days. It also gives the impression that nobody can take Muscat for granted and that his views can change for the better or for the worse according to the whim of his political instinct. In some ways Muscat’s tactics can be disorienting for his most erstwhile supporters who must be feeling like being taken on a roller coaster ride.

Probably most Labourites will follow the leader, applauding him for being a strong leader who keeps his word, but some may start feeling dizzy. For the same PM who threatens pushbacks of migrants and backs hunters in the referendum is perfectly capable of humanitarian speeches and closing the hunting season. 

L’etat c’est moi

One has to recognise that on this issue the PM did show a degree of consistency. For ever since he stopped the autumn season he made it clear that he would use his arbitrary power to do so when faced by illegalities which he deems serious enough to warrant this. Even during the campaign his message to the electorate was that there was no need to stop the spring hunting season because the electorate could trust him to stop it when abuses become rampant.

This was one of the arguments which the ‘no’ camp failed to address. People who were mildly against hunting could in this way vote yes, trusting in Muscat’s commitment to clamp down on illegalities.

Therefore his response to an exercise in direct democracy was that of affirming his monarchical power. In fact keeping the spring hunting derogation gives Muscat the opportunity to strike the balance himself according to his own political convenience. No wonder that Muscat did not wait long to tweet his monarchical decree from Baku in Azerbaijan. 

Sanitising the hunting season

Kathleen Grima gave a civilised face to the hunting community, with (left) Lino Farrugia and Joe Perici Calascione

For Muscat some illegalities can be tolerated but others not. Invested by the trust of the electorate he stands out as the final arbiter of legality. Muscat is completely alien to ecological considerations about not shooting at birds which are migrating to breed but he is very vulnerable to public opinion.

He also chooses to ignore the fact that illegalities are bound to happen simply because any blood sports is bound to attract unsavory types. Therefore he propagates the illusion that there can be a sanitised hunting season free of any illegalities. It was the same illusion successfully propagated by the ‘yes’ campaign before the referendum.

The problem for Muscat is that there can be no such thing as a completely sanitised hunting season. While some hunters are law abiding, some are not and many others sometimes cannot resist shooting.

It is this grey area which makes hunting difficult to control and sanitise. Muscat has now cornered himself into a position of having to close the season whenever public opinion is swayed by spectacular illegalities. Hunters may well discover that losing the spring hunting season was nothing compared to the uncertainty which now places them at the complete mercy of Muscat and public opinion.

For the argument on abolishing spring hunting was based on a realistic assessment that hunters are a mixed bunch and a realisation that while illegalities are bound to happen and should be punished according to the rule of law in autumn, one should simply not take any risk in spring when birds are breeding.

The question for Muscat now is: will he keep on punishing the pastoral law-abiding hunters portrayed in the IVA billboards for any illegality committed by what was portrayed as a small criminal minority?

Such a course of action would only be fair if the IVA campaign was based on a lie and if hunters are in fact the undisciplined and untrustworthy bunch portrayed by SHout. Perhaps Muscat knew this all along and all he cares for is the gratitude of both sides, for while hunters owe him an improbable referendum victory, some environmentalists are grateful for the closure of the spring hunting season, albeit just three days before its expiry. Next time environmentalists may well pray for a flagrant illegality on the first day of the season.