Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/451763
Opinion 19 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 25 JANUARY 2015 allowing other issues to come forward in future referenda because it degenerates the referendum into a war between lobbies? Beyond birds, twigs and "rednecks" Let me state clearly that unless the No campaign is careful it will not just lose this referendum, but it would have gambled the possibility of future referenda. I am not saying the No campaign should not have campaigned for such a referendum. On the contrary, I am saying that here what is at stake is not just a take on Spring Hunting, but a gamble on whether referenda of this sort could give people more forms of empowerment or take a wrong turn and damage such instruments for a long time to come. Everyone knows that parliamentarians, especially those in large parties, are uncomfortable with referenda because as Raphael Vassallo rightly said in his article, they lose their control. So the fact that both the PN and PL seem to be reluctant to "politicize" this referendum appears to be a good thing. But here is another double bind: by not "politicizing" this referendum (which actually should mean that the Parties do not want this to become a partisan referendum), the PN and PL are pushing back this process into the thick of a highly politicized territory which could have strong consequences on how future democratic processes work. Because of the deeply polarized lobbies that are involved in this referendum, there is a certain complexion that is more prone to fall into serious contradictions – even more than any other referendum that Malta had since the 1950s. If you thought that the Integration referendum messed up any logic when a win for Integration campaigned for by Mintoff, led the same Mintoff to campaign for Independence; or how Sant forfeited any chance of winning a General Election by sticking to his anti-EU guns even when a Referendum indicated otherwise; this referendum could be even more anomalous in terms of the consequences of its results. *** My take is that for the No campaign to win, they have to do far more than simply talk about birds and twigs and "rednecks". When the Anti-Foxhunting campaigners in Britain began with characterizing foxhunters as a bunch of reactionary "toffs", their campaign went nowhere. They only won when they jettisoned such stereotypes and appealed to a broader support, which included those who hated blood sports but had no qualms with the aristocracy. It is equally interesting to note that those, in Malta, who want us to believe that hunting is some romantic feature of Malta's traditional working class culture, are doing a disservice to their cause because they are grossly misrepresenting their case. However, beyond birds, hobbies and stereotypes, I would argue that the No campaign has an added responsibility which pertains to the democratic risks that they chose to gamble in this referendum. The fact that they are taking this risk does not render them in any way undemocratic or irresponsible. However the way the campaign is going, seems to be missing the point of such risk and is failing to alert those who regard it as a test case for the referendum per se. One cannot generalize and say that one referendum is as good or bad as another. However here I would pose a question: If this referendum is lost to the Yes vote, could one see the probability of other referenda that would, for example, prompt a campaign to substitute the Minimum Wage with a Living Wage? I say it would be very unlikely, though I hope and pray that I am totally wrong. Anyone who supports the widening of democracy cannot but support the instrument of referenda. A referendum is another opportunity to have the people vote beyond party lines and also show that there are avenues by which one could launch campaigns that are not started from within Parliament. However, while one cannot disagree with this, one must be aware that some referenda carry a high-risk double bind in that the same form of empowerment that they exercise risks going the other way and seriously curb it. By this I do not mean that anyone voting Yes is against democracy and anyone voting No is an avowed democrat. That would be an absurd argument even when the Yes camp was against the referendum in the first place. However I would argue that the reasons for voting No couldn't be limited to a single issue. Otherwise this campaign is as good as lost for the No campaign. Nor should it be construed as a referendum against hunters, as this will simply confirm what the hunters were arguing in the first place when they tried to halt this referendum in its tracks as undemocratic. Here I could see how those voting Yes would disagree with me and say that in effect they are salvaging a democratic right by keeping spring hunting. This may well be the case with spring hunting per se and in isolation. However there is a very clear reason why almost all MPs who declared their intentions are voting Yes. This has nothing to do with the EU, hunting rights, or electoral manifestos. It has to do with the way democracy has hitherto been reserved to parliamentarians and how it could work in the future … with or without referenda of this kind. I would say that this one slipped through the net. If there will be other referenda, they would be far more circumspect and tightly controlled. John Baldacchino is Chair of Arts Education at the University of Dundee in Scotland gamble FKNK president Joe Perici Calascione