Prime Minister Joseph Muscat could well see spring hunting abolished under his watch, the same way, his predecessor, Lawrence Gonzi had to painfully witness divorce introduced under his.

Thanks to referendums, politicians cannot always do as they please. They are a means for society to elevate to the national agenda certain issues that governments are too scared to tackle, like divorce, like spring hunting...

This was the reason Alternattiva Demokratika is now proposing the long route to a referendum, calling for a ban on spring hunting. Such a process is expected to take 11 months to conclude, as about 34,000 signatures are needed to get it off the ground.

The proposal is gaining ground among NGOs, including the Ramblers’ Association. Cue: the hunters’ federation issued a directive to its members to ban countryside walks on ‘their’ land, exposing its usual dirty tactics. As the past season proved, the hunting lobby clearly feels empowered by a new government that embraced the hunters even more than the Nationalists did.

A decade after joining an EU bloc, renowned for upholding environmental standards, we should never have got to the stage where we need to hold a referendum on spring hunting.

The practice of hunting in spring is banned across the EU, one reason being that birds are breeding and on their migratory passages. Yet, Malta continues to challenge this law in the European Court, using flawed arguments (and figures) to justify its cause, despite the constant barrage of bad publicity, not to take into consideration the fact that surveys have shown the majority of Maltese are anti-hunting.

However, is a referendum the right way of dealing with this contentious issue once and for all? Could this brave move by the Green party backfire?

We need to look at the basics. A referendum will dictate to a government whether or not to abolish an existing law. But, in this case, there is no existing legislation that allows spring hunting but a case-by-case derogation from an EU directive. So why should we vote on a law that doesn’t exist?

A referendum could pose a major risk. Will the electorate be really voting on spring hunting or will it be passing judgment on hunting in general? Will the outcome really reflect the way the electorate think? How many will actually bother with the inconvenience of going to a polling booth and vote on an issue they might consider as seasonally inconvenient? Many would undoubtedly feel passionate to lend their voice (and signature) after being ignored by the two main political parties that have been held at gunpoint by the hunters. But will it be enough? What if the majority don’t vote for a stop to spring hunting? Will the hunters’ federation demand even more concessions, causing more embarrassment for Malta?

Initiatives in the past, like the front against Polidano’s cement factory and the golf course, eventually paid off because of concerted and organised public pressure. While the divorce issue should also have never been decided by a referendum, at least there was an argument that it was a civil rights issue.

Spring hunting is illegal across the EU and hunters have proved time and again they will break the concessions, even if the law-breakers are a minority.

The Government should do the honourable thing and stop this practice once and for all unless Dr Muscat is to suffer the same embarrassment as his predecessor.