Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/306555
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 4 MAY 2014 13 Party's support may well secure the loyalty of hunters in the next elec- tion, it may have a corrosive effect on Muscat's hegemonic ambitions in the same way as the association with ultra conservative elements had tarnished the PN's name during the divorce referendum. If he wants to retain the support of liberals Muscat cannot afford to be associ- ated with one of the most disrepu- table lobbies in the country. Option 3: Taking the backseat The Labour leader may well de- cide to take the back seat, formally reiterating his position in favour of spring hunting but refraining from any active campaigning in the refer- endum, thus avoiding any associa- tion with the antics of the hunting lobby. But the risk of this strategy is that hunters might still expect Muscat to honour his pre-electoral pledge to retain spring hunting by supporting them in what they regard as a crucial battle. He may even lack control over Labour candidates and MPs who may campaign in favour of the hunting lobby for their own personal political gain, especially in districts with a strong hunting pres- ence. Muscat may also try to por- tray himself as a moderate between "extremists" on both sides, and thus encourage his supporters to abstain in the referendum. But he may find it difficult to remain aloof of a cam- paign which is bound to attract the attention of the media. Option 4: Thwarting the referendum Delaying the referendum through technical hitches and an overzealous scrutiny of signatures may buy Mus- cat time, but after all formalities are cleared, he will finally he will have to face a stark choice. The only option left to avoid this inevitable choice would be that of changing the referendum law to pre- vent it from taking place. On Tuesday Muscat did not ex- clude giving consideration to a petition by hunters to change the referendum law to stop the hunting referendum from taking place. Asked directly whether his gov- ernment was actually considering changing the law as the hunters had demanded, Muscat said he would wait for the petition. "There is an ongoing petition by the hunters asking for a change in the law and we will see" adding that his position "is clearly in favour of spring hunting". But a day later, Muscat tried to clear the waters by declaring that that the referendum process for the abrogation of spring hunting, was not something that was "at a politician's discretion," a declaration which indicates that there is no in- tention on Muscat's part to stop or derail the train set in motion by the 40,000-strong petition invoking the referendum, according to all legal requirements. This begs the question: why does Muscat feel the need to "see" the results of the ongoing petition by hunters which has absolutely no le- gal validity? Still, Muscat's latest declaration contrast with MEP candidate Cyrus Engerer's support for a petition call- ing for the protection of "minority" rights from referenda like the one proposed by the Coalition Against Spring Hunting. For the only way this petition will succeed is through a law passed in parliament which would clearly amount to "political discretion" which Muscat is exclud- ing. In a way, Muscat's declaration means that the hunters' petition is a useless exercise with no bearing on the referendum. By equating the rights of emargin- ated and excluded minorities to the privileges of a lobby which has exer- cised political blackmail for the past three decades, Engerer risks alienat- ing a large segment of the popula- tion – especially the young and the educated –who are more likely to oppose hunting. By entertaining speculation on this issue as Muscat himself did on Tues- day, Labour risks transforming the issue of hunting in to one of democ- racy. This could backfire on Muscat, as any move in this direction could be interpreted as one which tampers with everyone's democratic rights to appease a lobby. This would serious- ly undermine Muscat's hard-earned democratic credentials and raise the spectre of an authoritarian govern- ment. Of all three options, thwarting the referendum could be the most damaging for Muscat. The PN's commitments to hunting Simon Busuttil is clearly condi- tioned by the commitments he made to hunters to retain spring hunting when he led the Malta EU Informa- tion Centre before the EU referen- dum. Before the last election, the party was not bound by any agree- ment with the hunting lobby but made it clear that it would continue to defend the derogation on spring hunting as it had done when in gov- ernment. But in a quick question-and-an- swer session in a debate hosted by journalist Hermann Grech on the eve of the last election former PN leader Lawrence Gonzi replied: "yes, if need be" to a question on wheth- er he would hold a referendum on spring hunting. Muscat replied with a categorical no. The choices for the PN With the PN already committed to respect the results of the referendum, the choices for the PN is whether to call a yes, a no or to abstain from tak- ing a position in a prospective refer- endum. Option 1: Supporting the Yes campaign With the hunting lobby clearly aligned to the PL, the PN stands to lose less than the PL if it comes out in favour of the abolition of spring hunting. Surely, open support for the "yes" cause could further ce- ment the alliance between hunters and Labour, but the PN may stand to gain by Labour's association with hunters among the same category of voters alienated by its conserva- tive stance on several other issues. This is because surveys clearly show that younger educated voters are the most likely to be opposed to hunting. The only major drawback for the PN is that its support for the yes camp may be seen as a dramatic u-turn from its position in favour of spring hunting and a personal u-turn by Si- mon Busuttil. But the PN may well argue that hunters have been given a chance through the derogation on spring hunting, a chance that they squandered through the persistence of illegalities. Ultimately, hunting may represent a game changer for the PN as divorce was for the PL. The hunting referendum would en- able Busuttil to put his party on the right side of history and Muscat on the wrong side of history. Option 2: Supporting the no vote This is the least likely option for the PN, as it would alienate a vast majority of PN voters who support the ban on spring hunting. Moreo- ver, it is clear that what the hunting lobby wants is not support in the referendum but a cancellation of the referendum. The PN may sup- port the hunting cause by urging its supporters to abstain but this would backfire, as the PN electorate is less likely to follow party directives than Labour's more cohesive core vote. Option 3: Refraining from taking a stance The PN may be tempted to take a middle path, give full freedom to its members to vote as they deem fit, while tacitly supporting the refer- endum in its media and resisting at- tempts to obstruct it. Yet, such a po- sition would invite criticism that the party is spineless and unable to take a position. One way of coming out of the quandary would be if leading figures in the PN take a position in favour of the referendum in the same way as Joseph Muscat campaigned for the introduction of divorce while his party formally abstained from taking a position. But as happened with civil unions, Busuttil may be wary of taking a position himself and would end up taking the easy way out: abstaining from the debate. But in this way, the party will fail to score points on an issue where the PL risks losing badly. The hunting demographics A survey conducted by MaltaTo- day in July showed that 60% would vote against hunting in spring in a referendum. A considerable number of respond- ents (12%) replied that they are either not interested or are undecided. But only 28% would vote against remov- ing hunting in spring. Significantly, 78% of university- educated respondents, 71% of those aged between 18 and 34 and 63% of PN voters would vote against spring hunting. On the other hand, a smaller ma- jority against spring hunting ex- ists among the secondary educated (56%), persons aged 35 to 54 (52%) and PL voters (49%). News The hunting games Opposition leader Simon Busuttil Birdlife Malta Executive Director Steve Micklewright, holding up a letter from Home Affairs Minister's former legal firm, which assisted hunters in making a police complaint