Some might be inclined to regard the interference of our politicians in an apolitical referendum on spring hunting as ill-advised; even unconstitutional. On the other hand, in the current ‘Charlie’ climate it might be equally ill-advised to say that Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil had no business pronouncing themselves for or against, for to do so would seem to be questioning their right to freedom of speech.

Even I, who never made any claim to being ‘Charlie’ (accepting as I do the perils of untrammelled free speech and the fact that such is not freedom from consequence), do begrudgingly believe that politicising the issue was an inevitable evil.

Of course, the views of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition must be compelling and relevant. And yes, that does mean that they owe us an explanation for these. We have a right to know where and for what they stand, and fence-sitting is never an attractive option. Which is why Busuttil eventually had to take a stand, one way or the other.

Muscat’s position was no secret or shock and could be surmised. But Busuttil’s eventual support of spring hunting definitely came as a surprise to me, and, I dare say, to most. Whether he delayed or not, Busuttil, I honestly believed, would favour the environment in the end, and not just because Muscat had already bagged the other side.

Quite apart from the fact that one expects the Opposition leader to offer real opposition and formulate alternative policies, I have to say that I found the whole thing incongruous and out of sync.

Absurd and politically incorrect as it might sound, my brain can reconcile Muscat and the PL being on the side of the hunters; but, try as I might, I can’t say the same for Busuttil. He just doesn’t carry it off in quite the same way or with quite the same self-assurance. There is something decidedly more ‘PN’ in being against spring hunting. That Muscat gets away with it far more easily might seem unfair and a consequence of his Teflon slipperiness. But then life isn’t fair, and evidently, neither is politics.

To most observers, Busuttil looks like he’s been ‘railroaded’ into declaring the same allegiance as the Prime Minister purely to put a spanner in Muscat’s works. You see, had Busuttil supported the anti-hunting lobby, all those mildly apathetic Labourites who don’t care enough, either way, would have leapfrogged their way to the polls if only to vote against Busuttil’s ‘No’.

Now, with both sides rooting for the same team, this has clearly rained heavily on Muscat’s game of political football. And if the hunters win the day, it does not automatically translate into a double victory for the PL.

Still, it does make one wonder whether both the PL and PN have brokered cosy pre-election deals with the hunters. It also would seem to imply that both leaders know that victory favours the ‘Yes’ vote – i.e. the hunters’ lobby – and that Busuttil was not prepared to gamble another devastating loss at the polls.

We can’t ignore another factor, hitherto overlooked. It cannot be denied that an anti-hunting position would have ingratiated Busuttil with liberal democratic voters – those crucially without partisan loyalties. The environmentalists account for most of this floating electorate, and these are the ones who ultimately make or break governments. It’s they who very probably won the Labour Party its last election and, more significantly, lost it for the PN.

So yes, my guess was that Busuttil would play the environment card and do his damndest to portray Muscat as a cruel and barbarous slaughterer of defenceless animals en route to their breeding grounds.

With Muscat and Busuttil both on the same side, the electorate is now probably in a better position to decide over and above the political parties and less likely to vote according to tribal or party loyalty. Indeed, the only positive thing to come of this sorry state of affairs might be the Maltese electorate, turning away from political allegiances and for the first time, voting with complete independence.

These birds are not exclusively Maltese. They belong to everybody; they belong to Europe

This could conceivably benefit the future of politics in Malta, doing away with the two political monoliths with which everyone is too familiar. Although I doubt it.

My own feeling is not one of optimism for the birds and the environment. And as has already been said before in this newspaper by fellow columnist Claire Bonello, this is not just about birds – it is about the environment as a whole. If we can’t rally support for spring hunting, which ultimately is about living, breathing things, what sort of support could we foreseeably muster when it comes to brick and stone - i.e. buildings and over-development?

Sadly, I do believe the Yes vote and spring hunting will prevail. That said, I was equally sure divorce would not win the day, and the electorate more than proved me wrong. So perhaps I’m not the most reliable predictor of referendums and things to come. Or perhaps I don’t have enough faith in Malta and the Maltese.

It will be a very black day for Malta and the Maltese if the hunters prevail, and something tells me that both leaders are secretly hoping they won’t – despite their pseudo-endorsements. If spring hunting doesn’t make it, that will be one headache less and it would have ultimately been decided by the people. I think a win for the hunters will attract a great deal of negative publicity and would make Malta look very tacky and third world – tourists may very well vote with their feet, never to return or visit.

You see, the issue is not just incredibly important to Malta’s very own ecology and extended environment. It is also important to Europe’s bird population and to Malta’s international reputation as an ecologically sensitive and law-abiding EU member. These birds are not exclusively Maltese. They belong to everybody; they belong to Europe.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com