If one wished to be reassured that democracy and the power of civil society are alive and well in this small island State, the decision by the Constitutional Court to allow the petition signed by over 40,000 Maltese electors to hold an abrogative referendum to ban spring hunting is a heartening confirmation that it is in good health.
In an area of Maltese politics where one small group of people – the hunters – has held successive governments of both political persuasions to ransom for years, let the people decide. Unlike previous (consultative) referendums, an abrogative referendum under the Constitution is one which has been requested by voters who are seeking to abolish a law. Its result cannot be ignored by the government.
What are the rules of the game?
The Referenda Act lays down how the petition requesting an abrogative referendum may be worded. The question put to voters mirrors these strict parameters as follows: “Do you agree that the provisions for allowing a derogation opening a spring hunting season for turtle dove and quail regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 509.94) should continue in force?”
Those who want spring hunting to continue should therefore vote Yes. Those who want spring hunting to stop should vote No.
For the referendum result to be valid, the turnout on April 11 must be not less than 50 per cent plus one of all registered voters in Malta. Subject to this, the winner is decided on a simple majority of votes cast.
If the No vote wins, the law is automatically abolished. Otherwise, hunters will be able to continue to hunt in the spring.
The government has no say on the matter. The Constitution has taken the decision out of its hands and, for the first time in 145 years since Malta’s first (consultative) referendum, placed it firmly in the hands of the people.
The Coalition Against Spring Hunting, made up of several leading environmental groups and Alternattiva Demokratika, which has been responsible for gathering 41,194 votes to trigger the referendum, will be campaigning for a No vote.
The hunting lobby, led by the hunters’ and trappers’ federation, is as yet undecided whether to boycott the referendum (thus hoping to prevent the necessary 50 per cent plus one of the voters necessary to validate the result) or to campaign for a vote in favour of spring hunting.
The political tactics from here on are more Byzantine than usual.
The cri de coeur from some quarters that the people should be able to express their opinions entirely free of political pressure seems unlikely to prevail. Indeed, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, sending a clear message to Labour Party supporters of the direction in which he would like the referendum to go, has stated that he would be voting against the abolition of spring hunting.
For Opposition leader Simon Busuttil the issue is both complex and difficult. He could justify not taking a stance not to politicise the issue. But this could lose him support from hunters as well as environmentalists, of whom the latter are by inclination, culture and education largely natural PN supporters.
The bottom line now is that the No campaign, which already has 41,194 committed supporters, must muster a further 127,000 voters or so to be sure of victory. Without overt Nationalist support, this figure may be unattainable.
Dr Busuttil must make a calculation whether taking the moral high ground to abolish spring hunting, as well as inflicting a bloody nose on Dr Muscat if the campaign succeeds, is worth the risk.