I have read the contributions of Anthony Trevisan (‘Busuttil has shot himself in the foot’, February 3) and Martin Scicluna (‘Boldness in Politics’, February 4). It is evident from these and similar contributions that the leader of the Opposition is being somehow required to meet a much higher standard than that expected of the Prime Minister himself.
It is, therefore, important to set the facts straight on the stand taken by Simon Busuttil in this regard.
In the first instance, it was the Prime Minister himself who, at the very outset, drove headfirst into the fray and declared his personal position on the subject and that he would be voting against the abolition of the spring hunting regulations citing the rather generic “you all know what I think” as justification.
In so doing, Joseph Muscat, undoubtedly for his own reasons, sought to set off the spark of a parallel political battle between the two main political parties.
Given the manner in which politically-charged battles are fought and construed in our country, this would have inevitably started a process of political hijacking of the referendum, pushing the focus away from the actual subject at issue and conveying a message to voters that party allegiance would in practice be expected to take precedence over one’s opinion on the referendum question itself.
It is probably not unjustified to assume that Busuttil’s biggest critics would be those most let down had this political takeover of an essentially non-political public process actually taken place.
The direct consequence of Simon Busuttil’s declaration has been to sweep away the clear attempt to politicise the debate
Contrary to the stand taken by the Labour leader, Busuttil went about things the right way by setting in motion an open and detailed discussion within the top party structures – the administrative committee and the executive council.
These, following the wide-ranging revisions of the party statute that he piloted as one of the very first acts under his watch, are more widely representative than they ever were.
The declaration of voting intention made by Busuttil was made at the end of this process and reflected the opinion of the vast majority of members of these structures, even irrespectively of their own personal opinions on the subject.
The leader of the party was required to take a stand that was consistent with the policies in place.
At the same time, in full respect of the referendum process and to ensure, above all, that the voting process be as devoid of political interference as possible, all party members were left totally free to express their views for or against and to take part in the ongoing debate or otherwise as they felt necessary.
The underlying reasons behind the declaration relating to the policies in place are also to be taken into full consideration. This is not a case of a rather insultingly dismissive “you all know what I think” explanation.
Malta had declared way back in the run-up to its accession to the European Union it would be applying the derogation, which is permissible under the Birds Directive, post membership.
Successive governments proceeded to apply this derogation.
When the matter was brought for deliberation before the European Court of Justice, the Court, while finding that the manner of its application in the given years was not properly controlled and limited, proceeded to confirm that, in principle, the local circumstances were such that the applicability of the derogation to Malta actually fell within the directive’s provisions themselves.
Successive Nationalist governments have stood by and been consistent with this position, even when faced with nothing short of one onslaught after another from the lobbies concerned.
The direct consequence of Busuttil’s declaration has been to instantly and decidedly sweep away the clear attempt to politicise the debate, which would have undermined the full freedom of this first referendum that was proposed to abrogate a provision of law – itself another significant step in the popular exercise of our democracy.
This factor should certainly be acknowledged as one of the main contributions towards a truly unhampered public decision-making exercise where all participants will debate, discuss, argue, opine, convince and, ultimately, vote unshackled by the constraints of political pressure and partisan repercussions, which have too many times in the past hindered a truly free voting exercise.
Alex Perici Calascione is a member of the PN administrative council.