Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/446030
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 14 JANUARY 2015 7 News A Yes or a boycott? "yes" voters and abstainers will mean a sure defeat for the hunting lobby. Therefore in this case hunters' organisations cannot afford to send mixed messages; their message must be a clear call to vote "yes" (in fa- vour of retaining spring hunting) or not to vote. One major fac- tor is that the Maltese tradition- ally register a high participation rate in elections. The divorce referen- dum, which was stand- alone, also had a 72% turn- out. A MaltaToday hunting survey in September showed that 60% agree with a referendum on this issue being held, while 52% would surely vote in it. A further 18% said they would probably vote. Therefore if this were to be the case on polling day, hunters would be heading to a collective suicide if they refrain from voting. Moreover any decision to abstain will probably not be supported by either of the two major parties, whose leaders will be expected to respect democracy by voting in the referendum. The fact that both Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil will probably be voting in the ref- erendum would be in sharp con- trast with any directive not to vote. None of the two leaders can afford to shun an exercise in democracy. Moreover a boycott directive may be counterproductive as voters who normally do not vote because they can't be bothered, may end up voting simply because they do not want their abstention to contribute to a hunters' victory. Who will mobilise most voters? If hunters were to take the deci- sion of participating in the process, their only hope is that of mobilis- ing more of their supporters than the anti-hunting brigade. This may in fact be the "yes" cam- paign's greatest strength. In this aspect the "yes" campaign already has two advantages; the date of the referendum and the question itself. Had the referendum been held after or during the spring hunting season, there was a strong possi- bility of a repeat of incidents of il- legal poaching, such as the killing of storks, which caused an outrage in civil society. This would surely galvanise the "no" vote. Moreover hunters will be voting in the knowledge that if the referendum passes, the spring hunting season will not open this year. On the other hand if the "yes" prevails, the season will open a few days after the referendum is held. This increases the sense of ur- gency among hunters to do whatever possible to safe- guard their hobby. The question (dictated by discrepancies in the Maltese schedule of the law) asking vot- ers to vote yes if they want to retain spring hunting and no if they want to abolish it, does give the hunting lobby an advantage as they will be able to campaign on a "yes" plat- form. So far all referenda in Malta have been won by the yes campaign. It could also result in confusion among voters opposed to hunting, many of whom have become used to vote "yes" in previous appointments. Yet the anti-hunting lobby can bank on greater support than the hunting lobby. The most recent surveys show support for a spring hunting ban at around 50% against 34% who want to retain spring hunting. Yet much depends on whether those opposed to spring hunting will actually turn out on voting day. Moreover surveys had also shown a sharp drop in support for the spring hunting ban among Labour voters following last June's MEP election, during which the PL came out strongly in favour of the hunt- ing lobby. This led to a fall in support for the hunting ban from 59% in July 2013 to 44% in June 2014. Support for the spring hunting ban increased again to 50% in September 2014 even if 51% of PL voters were op- posed to it. The angry reaction of hunters against the government's decision to suspend the season in autumn may well backfire on the hunting lobby, by eroding their support among Labour voters. On the other hand despite the PN's non-committal stance, 73% of PN voters support the ban on spring hunting. The ability of hunters to mobilise their families, friends and sympa- thisers cannot be underestimated. While the anti-hunting lobby man- aged to gather a 41,000 strong peti- tion, which has been verified by the electoral commission, hunters have also gathered a 100,000 strong (but never verified) petition in an at- tempt to thwart the referendum. Ultimately a lot will depend on the effectiveness of the rival cam- paigns to mobilise voters. While hunters start at a disadvantage due to their poor reputation, marred by past illegalities, environmentalists may be less present on the ground and may appear aloof from bread and butter issues. One risk faced by the "no" camp is that of seeing their campaign over- shadowed by other issues, which may well eclipse the referendum. Moreover, it may be difficult to keep interest in a referendum pit- ting bird lovers against hunting enthusiasts. Ironically the insist- ence by some environmentalists on politicians taking the backseat may well further dampen interest in the referendum. Still the Coalition Against Spring Hunting may manage to create mo- mentum for the simple reason that the referendum is the first initia- tive by civil society to assert itself independently of the two major political parties and make history. It remains to be seen whether this historical moment will capture popular imagination. The reasoning behind a boycott would be that the sum of those who would not vote because they could not care less, and those who would not vote, to defend their hobby, would sink the referendum