Victory for the Yes camp was inevitable. Or was it? Early on, even before the campaigns began in earnest, I bet with an ex-hunter that Yes would win the day. He’d had his ‘Road to Damascus’ moment and desperately wanted me to write about his rejection of a pastime he claimed was as addictive and soul-destroying as any drug habit.

Since the result, the post-mortems haven’t stopped.

Some have blamed the hairline defeat for the birds on the apathetic no-shows, the automatic assumption being they’d all have voted No. We’ll never No.

Some blamed the off-kilter seven per cent lead predicted by Malta Today, which did nothing to galvanise already complacent voters to go out and vote.

Many blamed the cryptic referendum question with its unfortunate double-negatives and the fact that an ugly No is always harder to sell than a winsome Yes.

Others still have blamed the unpredictable island of Gozo, which is always a bête noire at election time; while some critics have now, with the benefit of hindsight, chosen to rubbish the No campaign, insisting it was poorly executed from start to finish.

Some seem to think the blame lies squarely with No frontman Saviour Balzan’s black slit-style sunglasses.

Most have blamed our political leaders, who did not have the good grace to bow out and become, in constitutional terms, private citizens again, like the rest of us.

I was one of the 49.4 per cent who voted No and against spring hunting. I must have read that unfortunate question three times before inserting my ‘X’ in the No box. It’s anyone’s guess whether that’s down to my years of legal training. Maybe the question itself was just too cryptic; maybe I was having a slow day.

I’m any campaign manager’s worst nightmare. Not just because I’m naturally suspicious and prefer making my own decisions, but also because persuasive strategies don’t really work on me. Billboards don’t immediately capture my attention, and when they do, I rarely understand the message as I’m supposed to.

I can’t say I was particularly impressed by either campaign – ultimately the result was so close as to make either side as good or as bad as the other.

But I do think that having a female lawyer front the hunters’ campaign was a canny move. Kathleen Grima held her own. The professional factor worked, and the common touch.

Also shrewd was the conscious decision to put FKNK’s Lino Farrugia on the backseat and let Grima sit up-front. It follows that, given his controversial persona, Balzan might likewise have done better in the backseat.

All is not lost. 49.4 per cent has clearly jolted Joseph Muscat

And while I think that No could have given the campaign greater fizz and had more media and celebrity fun, it’s easy to point the finger now. Although I did find Shout to be a rather ‘loud’ and unfortunate acronym – too subtle and cryptic (that word again), one thing’s for certain – had Joseph Muscat backed the No, the hunters wouldn’t have stood a chance, regardless.

We’ll never know what would have happened had Simon Busuttil endorsed the No camp. While it might have galvanised apathetic Nationalists who must have felt betrayed, it might have done the birds more damage, with Yes careering even further ahead. This has rendered him the ‘least-free’ and most disenfranchised and checkmated of all.

I found the Malta Today polls inappropriate, creating as they did the assumption that No had it in the bag. Never one to count my chickens or birds, I hoped Malta Today’s Balzan would have erred on the side of caution. Conversely, the hunters were cagey and, using their best reverse psychology, successfully portrayed themselves as the underdogs.

I could be vitriolic and rant about the depressingly large number of people who have been bred to accept bogus traditions and outmoded ways of life. I am, of course, very upset the birds didn’t make it, but in conversation it became so painfully obvious that, to certain quarters, this was do or die. Many were hospitalised and desperate, and I’m certain strokes, heart attacks and suicides would have ensued had No prevailed.

So you see, Muscat aside, there was desperation and fervour in the Yes camp along with a sympathy vote. It came from immediate and extended family, from friends and the rallied support of fishermen, firework and feast enthusiasts and all the other minority groups who were deceptively railroaded into fearing a similar predicament.

Still, the fact remains that the politicians obviously felt much more comfortable letting ‘our’ side down, whereas it was a risk they were not willing or ready to take with the hunters. This ultimately tipped the balance in their favour.

And there’s a political lesson to be learned from that.

If they were ready to run risks with our vote, we should have the gumption to take our own risks at the next general election. If 20,000 or even 10,000 of that 49.4 per cent were to take a chance with their vote, the perverse two-party PL/PN symbiosis we know so well would be wrecked.

Although they’ve cooked their goose in our regard, politicians obviously feel that this particular group are much easier to manipulate than the hunters. That most will continue to follow their leader, in blinkered fear of ‘throwing away’ their coveted number one. This referendum has perfectly mirrored how pathetic we are; the irony will be lost on most.

Still, all is not lost. 49.4 per cent has clearly jolted Muscat, who knows that despite his persuasive power and heavy artillery, half the population are appalled by the political interference, which he, as Prime Minister, will have to carry. He’s got enough political nous to know there’ll be long-term consequences and that he’s running low on ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ cards. That much was obvious in his reactive speech.

The possibilities are infinite. We ‘noes’ suddenly have so much power than ever before. Whether we’ll use it wisely remains to be seen. 49.4 per cent may yet become the ‘new hunter’.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com