Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/449474
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 21 JANUARY 2015 5 JOSEPH Muscat's clear stance in fa- vour of spring hunting has already had a clear impact on voters, by shifting more Labour voters to sup- port the spring hunting derogation. This was evidenced in MaltaToday surveys conducted after the MEP elections in June, during which Muscat and several MEP candidates repeatedly pandered to the hunters' votes. But the Nationalist electorate may well react differently to a similar stance taken by their party's leader. Moreover, a segment of PL vot- ers, who may have been wary of voting against their leader's stance if Busuttil were to campaign for the other side, may now feel free to defy their leader. They will vote in the knowledge that Busuttil will not score any points if spring hunting is abolished. But the major problem for Busuttil is that he has not only disappointed a majority of PN voters who oppose spring hunting, he has also alien- ated liberal and green voters who expected Busuttil to reposition the party on this issue. This means that unlike Muscat in the divorce referendum, the PN leader will not be reaping any benefits from a 'no' victory. Taking the (wrong) side? One easy solution for Busuttil would have been to allow a free vote and to refrain from taking a stance in order not to further politicise the issue. But such a stance would have ex- posed Busuttil to criticism by Mus- cat about being an indecisive leader. Busuttil was keen to avoid a rep- etition of the civil unions debacle when he abstained in a historic par- liamentary vote on this issue. While Muscat immediately reiter- ated his stance in favour of spring hunting – while also allowing his party a free vote – Busuttil refused to pronounce himself immediately after the date of the referendum was announced, claiming that he had first to discuss this issue internally. Ironically, his final decision was to take the same approach as Muscat: a free vote for the party while ex- pressing a personal stance in favour of spring hunting. His hesitation gave voters the impression that the PN leader was considering changing his stance of being in favour of a limited spring hunting season, as was the case dur- ing the past months, to one against spring hunting. As Busuttil correctly says, it was a PN government which had defend- ed the derogation in the European Court of Justice. So why did Busut- til feel a need for a six day reflection before announcing a stand? Moreover there has been no open discussion within the party before Busuttil pronounced himself (again) in favour of spring hunting. Had Busuttil convened the party's gen- eral council or executive and asked for a vote, his hesitation would have been seen to be justified. He would have stood out as a believer in party democracy. Neither would such a vote have precluded the party from giving freedom to its officials to express themselves on this issue according to their conscience. But in the absence of any consultation with the party's grass roots, Busut- til's hesitation comes across as po- litical calculation. All this gave the impression that Busuttil was still weighing the costs of taking a stance in favour of or against spring hunting. The result was that this gave the impression that Busuttil's stance is not a principled one but one dic- tated by Machiavellian electoral considerations. Electoral considerations One major consideration made by Busuttil is that if the 'no' wins, spring hunting would have been abolished on Muscat's watch. By pronouncing himself in favour of spring hunting Busuttil is ensuring that hunters would not blame him for its abolition. Busuttil may end up claiming that it was the Labour government's concessions to hunt- ers which tipped the scales against hunters. These concessions included re- moving the spring hunting licence fee, doing away with the obligation to wear an armband and removing the curfew on afternoon hunting on Sundays. This may suggest that Bu- suttil may still consider hunters as potential switchers, as Muscat had done in opposition. Another electoral consideration is that while the majority of PN voters disagree with spring hunting, and most hunters have already shifted to Labour, hunters' votes may have a strategic role in a number of rural localities, especially in Gozo. It is also likely that many MPs, worried by the strength of the hunt- ing lobby, also put pressure on Bu- suttil to take a pro-hunting stance. All this seems to suggest that Bu- suttil, like Muscat, had his party giving in to the blackmail of the hunting lobby. The cost paid by Busuttil Yet while Busuttil's stance may be dictated by strategic considerations, it will surely not help the PN leader in his bid to regain the trust of the electorate. While it is extremely un- likely that hunters will believe that Busuttil is genuinely supporting their cause, liberal and green voters have probably recoiled at Busuttil's pro-hunting declaration. Busuttil has also lost another gold- en opportunity to distance himself from a derogation defended by pre- vious PN governments. Busuttil, as head of the Malta EU Information Centre, did promise hunters that spring hunting would be protected before Malta joined the EU. But Busuttil may well have con- vincingly argued that his views over this issue have changed over time, in the same way as Muscat changed his views on gay adoptions, which he opposed when elected Labour leader in 2008. Busuttil seems to underestimate the key role played by the divorce referendum in strengthening Mus- cat's electoral appeal, even if it might have alienated conservative voters. In this way Muscat could present himself as a liberal. Busuttil may have made a similar claim for the environmentalist vote had he positioned himself against spring hunting. A yes to save the no campaign? But what impact will Busuttil's stance have on voters in the April 11 referendum? By taking the same stance as Mus- cat, Busuttil has ensured that the referendum will not be seen by vot- ers as a direct personal confronta- tion between himself and Muscat. This may well free Labour voters from any political obligation to vote yes out of loyalty to Joseph Muscat, as they would not see their leader beaten by a lobby supported by Si- mon Busuttil. Labour voters may well find it easi- er to vote against the whole political establishment than simply against their Prime Minister. What is sure is that MaltaToday surveys have shown that Labour voters had already shifted to the pro-spring hunting camp months before the referendum date was an- nounced. A survey held after the MEP elec- tions in which Muscat pronounced his position in favour of hunting several times, showed a 16 point drop in support for the abolition of spring hunting and an 18 point drop among PL voters. Busuttil's own stance may well dampen support for the 'no' cam- paign among PN voters. But the PN's electorate may respond dif- ferently than Labour's to the stance taken by the party leader. Anti-hunting views may be in- grained among a large section of urban PN voters, irrespective of the party's position. Such voters may al- so feel a strong motivation to avenge the 1995 deal between the PL and hunters, which had a key role in Al- fred Sant's victory in 1996. A large segment of PN voters may have already opposed the spring hunting derogation even when the PN was in government. They may have viewed hunters as ungrateful lobbyists who were constantly hu- miliating PN-led governments. Yet inflicting a defeat on Muscat may have increased the motivation of PN-leaning voters. In fact this proved to be a key fac- tor in the strong response to the petition collected just months af- ter Labour's 2013 electoral victory, which led to the referendum. In the absence of such a strong political motivation, some PN voters may well stay away from the polls. It is the PN which stands to gain most from a 'no' result, for the sim- ple reason that it was Muscat who had signed a pre-electoral deal with hunters which will be nullified by the referendum. But it will also be difficult for Busuttil to send a message that the party stands to benefit from a 'no' victory when he himself is voting yes. Therefore Busuttil's stance cuts both ways; while it may increase support for the abolition of spring hunting among Labour voters who were reluctant to do so as they did not want to make Busuttil any fa- vours, it may de-motivate a number of PN voters who would have voted no to spite Muscat. Ultimately the referendum may test the electorate's propensity to challenge the stance taken by both political parties, which together represented more than 90% of eligi- ble voters and 98% of valid votes. Busuttil's stance has turned the referendum into one pitting the people against the whole political establishment. Will the people pre- vail? News Deciphering Simon's 'Yes' Is Busuttil capitulating to the political blackmail of the hunters' lobby or is he avoiding a direct clash with Muscat? JAMES DEBONO asks PHOTOGRAPHY BY RAY ATTARD Simon Busuttil – avoiding a direct clash?