Alternattiva Demokratika was always going to be something of a play on words. On the one hand the name simply tells us that the local Greens’ basic foundational principle is democracy rather than say socialism or nationalism or Jedi doctrine.

People would vote for or against depending on their attitudes towards hunting generally rather than towards spring hunting specifically

In this sense it resembles what used to be Italy’s Democrazia Cristiana, or Lino Briguglio’s short-lived but not entirely irrelevant Partit Demokratiku Malti, which contested the 1987 elections and subsequently faded from view.

There is, however, a second and somewhat more colourful way to decode the name. By this reading AD would be the democratic alternative to the presumably-undemocratic bipartisan hegemony AD people like to call ‘MLPN’. AD’s point would thus be to offer alternative political models that are truly democratic.

Which apparently is the idea behind the party’s push for a referendum on spring hunting. AD have made it known they’ve all but given up on either of the two parties ever lifting a finger to stop the practice. It’s basically the Beppe Grillo argument: Given that the political establishment is rotten, blog elsewhere.

Unlike AD’s earlier experiment to collect 30,000+ (10 per cent or more of eligible voters) signatures for a referendum on rent laws, this one may well go some way. Hunting is a topic most Maltese have a strong opinion on, informed or otherwise. Be that as it may there are several reasons why I think a referendum is in this case largely a bad idea.

First, the EU Birds Directive, which Malta must abide by, already outlaws spring hunting. It is only permissible by special derogations that member states apply on a season-by-season basis and for a very restricted range of species, in our case, turtle doves and quail.

Besides, the Referendum Act legislates for abrogative referenda – for people to decide whether or not to abolish an existing law. Only in this case there is no existing law that allows spring hunting, only case-by-case derogations from an EU directive. Put simply, we would be voting to abolish a law that doesn’t exist.

Second, what if the majority of people voted in favour of spring hunting? That would put us in the bizarre position of being collectively in breach of the Birds Directive in principle, in its reluctant observance (because there is no other way) in practice. I doubt there would be much incentive left for hunters to stick to the strict rules of the derogations.

Third, spring hunting derogations have nothing to do with beliefs about birds’ rights to life and freedom. They are a highly technical matter and include ecological parameters such as ‘small numbers’, ‘mortality rates’ and the ‘precautionary principle’.

In the course of my research in the field I’ve interviewed many of the people who are involved in the derogation procedures; that includes a good number of experts on bird ecology and such. I haven’t so far met a single person who told me they understood exactly what’s going on. On the contrary, shrugs and raised eyebrows have been the order of the day.

That’s not summarily to diss the science of ecology or the EU legislation that regulates it. The point is that the field requires specialised competences and doesn’t really lend itself to popular plebiscite. One may as well hold a referendum on whether the welds on aircraft should be tested every three or six months.

But surely that’s not the same thing, more people have an opinion on hunting than on aircraft quality control? Which brings me to my fourth point. In the event of a referendum it would be practically impossible to avoid what one might call terminological creep.

People would vote for or against depending on their attitudes towards hunting generally rather than towards spring hunting specifically. It would be all but impossible conceptually to separate the two. Admittedly, such a slippage is a risk in any referendum, which is why the wording of the divorce question was debated in Parliament. In this case, however, I don’t see how things could be salvaged.

Take James Debono, a journalist whose work I admire greatly. Writing in favour of the referendum a couple of days ago he mentioned things like “the hunting lobby’s vindictiveness and arrogance”, “the occupation of our countryside by hunters and trappers”, the “anti-hunting cause”, and the “hunting and construction lobby which seems to have taken a free ride on Labour’s promise of change”.

I doubt Debono, logical mind and all, would ever bring himself to vote for spring hunting, even if he thought that the technical-ecological arguments against were rubbish. His dislike of hunting, to which he has a right, would likely trump the specifics of the referendum question.

Fifth, popular plebiscites are not always the best or exclusive route to democratic politics. Alternative models like consensual decision-making are arguably better placed where minority interests are concerned.

For example, I wouldn’t want ‘the people’ to decide whether or not Muslim women should be allowed to wear a veil. That would be a sort of tyranny of the majority.

I think I’ve mentioned before that my work involves sitting on the University Faculty Board for Arts. In seven years I can remember one, possibly two, occasions on which we took a vote. The reason is not that we agree on everything (quite the contrary, in fact) but rather that we prefer to reach a consensus. It helps no end to know that disagreement is not a matter of being outvoted and shut up.

Thing is, plus ça change, about as useful as a dead flamingo on this one. Or maybe it’s just that I inadvertently swallowed a positive energy crystal yesterday evening. In any case, my feeling is that we’ve made significant headway with respect to hunting, conservation, and consensus.

I know many hunters who are beginning to see the point of not shooting, say, a swallow, just to let it rot away. FKNK too have made a number of moves in the right direction. It wouldn’t make much sense, now that the common variety is off the list of endangered species, to shut hunters up using the brutal logic of the majority.

Their likely retort would be to put up more RTO signs (as FKNK have pledged to do following the ramblers’ nod to the referendum), build higher walls, and go back to shooting anything that flies when no one is looking. A right democratic alternative that would be.

mafalzon@hotmail.com