Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/494410
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 APRIL 2015 6 News JAMES DEBONO ALL previous referenda were con- sultative, in which voters were asked to express their opinion on issues which still had to be ratified by par- liament or the colonial authorities. But the spring hunting referendum was the first one in which voters have utilised a law introduced in 1996 which enables 10% of the electorate to invoke a referendum on whether to delete or retain a law. Therefore the spring hunting ref- erendum is the first to be invoked by the electorate and the first whose result will be enacted automatically without the need of ratification in parliament. This means that MPs will not be taking a vote on this issue in parliament, as happened after the approval of the divorce referendum. The EU referendum was also con- sultative, to the extent that former PM Eddie Fenech Adami immediate- ly called for a general election to seek a clear mandate for EU membership after the opposition failed to accept the result. Moreover, while in the case of di- vorce the question put to voters was drafted and approved by parliament (following a motion tabled by the op- position and supported by two gov- ernment backbenchers), in the case of spring hunting the question put to voters is the one chosen by 41,000 citizens who signed the petition. Moreover this was the first referen- dum whose result will not be legally valid if less than 50% of registered voters turn out to vote. A No for change Still, the fact that the law had been left untested for nearly two decades did create some teething problems. A deficiency in the law gave an un- expected twist to the spring hunting referendum. While previously the proponents of change had led "yes" campaigns, in this case the propo- nents of change had to campaign on a "no" platform. The referendum question on spring hunting which was put to voters was based on the Maltese version of the Referendum Act that the Constitu- tional Court had accepted, when it decided that Malta would go to the polls to decide on whether to make spring hunting illegal or not. The fault lay with the legislators of the Maltese referendum law, whose translations are incorrect. It turns out that the incorrect trans- lation of the Referendum Act into Maltese contradicts the very defini- tion of 'abrogative referendum' as laid down in the same law: while the petition for the referendum asked voters to vote on "whether to retain a law", the definition of the abrogative referendum in the same law is to vote on "whether to remove a law". According to the Maltese version's official petition that acts as a first step for an abrogative referendum, the question asks voters whether the law they want to remove "should be retained". However, the English version of the petition asks voters whether the laws they want to abrogate "should not continue in force". Since the Maltese language version of any law is deemed to be the final say, the attorney general advised the Prime Minister to ask voters whether the present law "should be retained." The first post colonial referendum? Past referenda dealt either with Malta's relationship with the rest of the world or with the role of the Catholic Church in Maltese society. The spring hunting referendum is the first one to deal with an environmen- tal issue, which is not directly linked to religious, or sovereignty issues. In this sense the spring hunting ref- erendum belongs to a new era which post dates the EU referendum, which anchored Malta in the EU, and the divorce referendum, which set the boundaries between church and state. Although the referendum was made possible by the existence of an enabling law which puts in practice a self declared derogation from EU law which bans spring hunting, the referendum is an exercise of popu- lar sovereignty which goes beyond EU membership. Interestingly in this referendum, church bodies like a group of influential Jesuits and Aux- iliary Bishop Charles Scicluna him- self before becoming Archbishop, did speak clearly in favour of a No vote, but they did so as a strong voice in pluralistic civil society rather than as an organisation seeking to impose its values. Malta's six referenda The first referendum organised in late nineteenth century Malta re- sulted in a plebiscite in favour of the participation of priests in the council of government. The question put to the electorate was: 'Are ecclesiastics to be eligible to the Council of Government?' At the time only the landed gentry had the right to vote. Religious passions reached a high point in the first post-war referen- dum on integration with Great Brit- ain, a plan proposed by Mintoff to make Malta an integral part of Great Britain. From a legal point of view the Yes vote carried the day, but the total of those voting against, those abstain- ing or invalidating their vote, the de- ceased, and the 'non-voters' exceeded the yes vote by almost 10 per cent. The Nationalist Party boycotted the integration referendum, arguing that Integration would result in the dominance of Protestantism over Catholicism, leading to the introduc- tion of civil marriage, divorce and birth control despite the fact that Mintoff had made it clear those local issues such as education and religion would be in the hands of the Maltese government. The church also asked its supporters to vote 'no' or abstain in the referendum, floating banners such as 'Meta tivvota Alla jarak u jig- gudikak' (When you're in the polling booth God will watch you and will judge you). The independence constitution ap- proved in the referendum in 1964 al- so had the church's blessing before it was submitted for popular approval. In the 1964 referendum the elec- torate was called on to answer the question: "Do you approve of the constitution proposed by the Gov- ernment of Malta, endorsed by the Legislative Assembly, and published in the Malta Gazette?" The EU membership referendum was the first secular referendum in which the church stayed out of the fray. The results All previous referenda resulted in the question being approved. But none received the approval of a ma- jority of all the registered voters, because in all the other five cases a substantial number of voters did not vote. The PN had formally called for a boycott of the integration referen- dum in 1956. Although integration plans were approved by a majority of voters who cast their vote, the low turnout strengthened Britain's resolve to turn down Mintoff's plans. In the 2003 referendum on EU membership Labour leader Alfred Sant called on voters "to abstain, vote against or invalidate their vote". In this way he was able to claim, "the partnership (Sant's alternative to membership) had won." All referenda except for the one on divorce and the spring hunting referendum were organised by the government of the day. The divorce referendum was the first one to be called after an opposition motion was approved in parliament while the spring hunting referendum was the first to be called by the elector- ate itself. Polling the NINE polls have been conducted on spring hunting in the past two years. Seven of these surveys were held by MaltaToday, one by Xara- bank and one by Misco interna- tional. Of these polls, eight showed a ma- jority against spring hunting, while one carried out by MaltaToday in January showed a slight Yes major- ity. A similar pattern was also ob- served in the divorce campaign which saw an anti divorce majority in only one survey of seven carried out by MaltaToday immediately before and during the referendum campaign. Only two of the polls showed an absolute majority against spring hunting and both were carried out before the announcement of the ref- erendum date. Similarly all divorce polls held after the announcement of the referendum date did not pro- duce an absolute majority. The latest MaltaToday survey shows that 17% were undecided. This means that undecided voters can still turn the tables for the Yes side. But comparisons with polls con- ducted before the divorce referen- dum indicate that the undecided will not have a strong bearing on the result. The final two MaltaToday di- vorce surveys showed 21% to 24% of undecided voters and the Yes for divorce enjoying a lead of three to eight points. In the end the Yes to divorce won by a six-point margin. As was the case with hunting, the divorce camp saw its support de- cline from 59% a year before the campaign started to between 35% and 40% in the surveys conducted during the actual campaign. In June 2013, before the referen- dum campaign had started, an ab- solute majority of the Maltese (60%) expressed themselves against spring hunting in a MaltaToday poll. The percentage of those opposed to spring hunting declined to around 40% during the campaign itself. Closing the gap What initially amounted to a 32- point gap in favour of the No camp was effectively reduced to seven points in the case of spring hunt- ing. In the case of divorce the initial gap amounted to 22 points. The gap was closed to eight points and three points in the last two divorce polls. This indicates that when faced by the prospect of an actual refer- endum a segment of voters who favoured change may have had cold feet in both occasions. Moreover MaltaToday's surveys suggest that while in the divorce referendum PN voters largely fol- lowed their party's official 'no' stance and Labour voters followed Joseph Muscat's stance in favour of divorce, in the spring hunting referendum PN voters have defied their leader's personal Yes stance while PL voters have followed their leader's stance again. In this sense the spring hunting referendum is a complete reversal of the divorce referendum when it comes to the political alignment of voters supporting the two rival camps. While in the case of divorce be- tween 20% to 25% of PN voters sup- ported its introduction, in the case of spring hunting only 20% of PL voters support its abolition. On the other hand while 70% of PL voters supported the introduction of di- vorce, the same percentage of PN voters now supports the abolition of spring hunting. Surveys have consistently shown women, younger voters, and post secondary voters in favour of the spring hunting ban and older voters and secondary educated respond- ents as more inclined to vote in favour of retaining spring hunting. Curiously the same demographic groups who supported the intro- duction of divorce are the same supporting the abolition of spring hunting. The only variable is sex; males were more inclined to vote for divorce than females while fe- males are now more inclined to vote against spring hunting than males. The campaign as seen through surveys Significantly, MaltaToday surveys indicate that the change relating to the views on hunting was regis- tered in June 2014 after the MEP elections, in which various Labour exponents, including several MEP candidates and PM Joseph Muscat declared themselves in favour of the spring hunting derogation – support for the spring hunting ban fell from 60% to 44%. But support for the abolition of spring hunting picked up again in subsequent months, rising to just above 50% in September 2014. The second drop in support (from 50% to 39%) for the spring hunting ban was registered last January, af- ter the referendum question was announced and the PM held to his intention to vote yes. Support for retaining spring hunting rose from 37% to 40%. Since then support for banning spring hunting has remained sta- tionary at between 37% and 40% while the support of those in fa- vour of retaining spring hunting declined from 40% to 33% in last week's survey. This suggests that the No camp was more effective in conveying its message during the campaign even From priest politicians to spring hunting: Malta's seven referenda JAMES DEBONO explores the similarities and differences between polling on the 2011 divorce referendum and spring hunting before the two referenda The referendum on spring hunting was the sixth national referendum to be held, but the first in which the electorate's say is final Yes 96.1 77 54.5 53.7 53.2 No 3.9 23 45.5 46.3 46.8 As % of registered voters Yes 57.2 44.3 40.4 48 37.7 *The Gozo Civic Council referendum of 1973 has been excluded since this was not a national referendum. 1870 Ecclesiastics 1956 Integration 1964 Independence 2003 EU 2011 Divorce As % of valid votes cast