Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1540360
6 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 15 OCTOBER 2025 ANALYSIS Abela's hobbyist gambit: Manufacturing Flanked by hunters and festa enthusiasts on Sunday, Robert Abela announced his government's intention to enshrine the protection of Maltese traditions and hobbies in the Constitution. But is Abela manufacturing a non- existent threat to boost support for his ailing party? Asks James Debono THE Labour government has latched onto the unintended consequences of a botched PN motion to enshrine envi- ronmental rights in the Constitution by proposing its own constitutional amend- ment aimed at protecting traditions and hobbies. Crucially, it remains unclear whether this will take the form of a token refer- ence in Chapter Two of the Constitu- tion — which serves as a 'declaration of principles' that are not enforceable — or whether Abela intends to entrench the enjoyment of hobbies as a constitu- tional right. For while a vague reference to tradi- tions and hobbies alongside the protec- tion of artisanal trades and the state's duty to protect and safeguard the en- vironment in Chapter Two would have little impact on future regulations to govern hobbies like hunting, recogni- tion as an enforceable right could en- able hobbyists to invoke the clause to seek a legal remedy against future re- strictions. Deconstructing Labour's narrative The narrative pushed by Labour was that the PN's amendment would make it possible for citizens to seek legal re- dress against hobbies or traditions that may impinge on their environmental rights. Those raising the alarm ranged from motorsport enthusiasts to hunt- ers and pyrotechnic organisations and bizarelly even sports associations and journalists. While the PN was clearly caught off guard and unprepared for this curve- ball thrown by Labour — which it could have anticipated — the folksy reaction to its move has all the markings of an orchestrated campaign to conjure up a wildly exaggerated threat to hobbies. Instead of addressing valid concerns by foolproofing the PN's amendment to rule out frivolous complaints leading to injunctions not based on scientific facts, Abela wants to push through an amend- ment that risks turning the Constitution into a dumpster for everybody's fetishes. Abela even had the cheek to lash out at what he described as efforts to create conflict between environmentalists and those who engage in traditional pastimes, when it is his government that is pushing this narrative. In reality, this comes at a time when environmentalists are in sync with popu- lar concerns on the impact of construc- tion on daily life — an issue that, at least in theory, should put them on the same page as countryside hobbyists whose rec- reational spaces are also being taken up by urban sprawl. Still, there is political logic to Abela's strategic move. Here are the main reasons for it: 1) This move could split PN voters and rekindle Labour's historic alliance with hunters Such a constitutional amendment even if limited to Chapter 2 would require a two thirds majority, which means that it can only be enacted if the PN gives its consent. But such a vote could be a mine- field for the opposition. Surveys before the spring hunting ref- erendum showed that over two-thirds of PN voters favoured a spring hunting ban. Yet a strong minority of PN voters, par- ticularly in rural areas, opposed this ban. The referendum was ultimately lost by a whisker, thanks to a strong pro-hunting vote in Gozo. That victory crowned an effective cam- paign in which hunters successfully teamed up with other hobbyists appre- hensive that they might be next, crucial- ly backed by Labour. Political history suggests that hunters are one of the few single-issue lobbies capable of swinging elections. Curiously, it was Labour that first suf- fered the brunt of hunters' anger when Dom Mintoff introduced a closed season in 1980. But Labour's promise to roll back PN-era hunting regulations in the 1990s was a major factor in its 1996 electoral victory, forcing the PN to sign its own pact with the hunting lobby in 1998. Since then, Labour has actively courted hunters and rural voters who tradition- ally leaned towards the PN as a bulwark of traditional values but were apprehen- sive of EU membership — which Labour initially opposed. Even today, hunting remains a quandary for the PN: any sign that it represents a threat to the pastime could penalise it in crucial districts like Gozo and the south-east, which it desper- ately needs to win back. In this sense, if the constitutional ref- erence to hobbies goes beyond a token recognition in Chapter Two, things could get messy for the PN. Any vote on a con- stitutional amendment to enshrine hob- bies and traditions would pose a major dilemma: shooting it down would alien- ate a segment of voters, but cosying up to hunters could push others towards Mo- mentum or ADPD. 2) It could provoke a cringe reaction that reinforces Abela's narrative. Talk of Abela's constitutional amend- ment could elicit reactions from those who cringe at the omnipotence of the hunting lobby, giving Abela the opportu- nity to depict the threat to hobbies as a real one. The PN may officially fend off Abela's challenge or even endorse it to avoid elec- toral damage, especially if this is limited to a token gesture. But this will not stop people, including some associated with the party, from speaking out against the travesty on social media, especially if it takes the form of an enforceable right. As it often does, Labour will be busy Hunting and trapping are amoung the hobbies Robert Abela has proposed protecting