Thinking out of the (democracy) box

For Muscat and his lieutenants doing away with mid-term elections is all about saving the country from another bout of electoral fatigue, an argument that in itself suggests that an excess of voting debilitates the proper management of the country.

Surely this is a far more convincing excuse than Muscat’s initial argument that postponing elections will save the country €2.5 million, the price of two and a half citizenships under the Individual Investor Programme and half the price of the Café Premiere ‘bailout’. 

But there are two tangible political consequences emanating from postponing local elections to after the 2018 general election. Firstly the referendum on Spring hunting will not be held in conjunction with local elections. Such a stand-alone hunting referendum will probably have a lower turnout than one coinciding with local elections. Secondly the postponement ensures that Muscat won’t suffer any electoral setbacks before the 2018 elections.

The aura of invincibility

In this way Muscat will face the next general election with his aura of invincibility confirmed in last June’s MEP elections fully intact. This means that Muscat will deny the opposition any opportunity of devaluing this perception by gaining ground at the local level.

Moreover, Muscat, who takes elections very seriously, won’t be distracted by having to go back to election mode next year at a time when he may well be facing the first bout of mid term blues. This suggests that Muscat is unwilling to take any risk which puts his super majority in question.

For, armed with the perception of overwhelming support, Muscat can ride rough shod over both the opposition and civil society, while ensuring that nothing dispels the perception of Labour as the new natural party of government. For it is this perception  which turns new Labour into a  magnet for all those who want to have a stake in running the country.

While in the past Nationalist strategists viewed local elections as an opportunity for Nationalist voters to let off steam in between elections only to re-assemble again in general elections, Muscat fears any signs of erosion in the support he has.

One major risk for Muscat is that each election will provide voters the opportunity to renew their support by securing jobs or favours.

Yet instead of taking a bold decision to simply change the electoral calendar and take the flak for it, Muscat has left his options open, by ushering a public consultation headed by Owen Bonnici, his affable, young and popular Justice Minister who has already proved his worth in selling the controversial citizenship scheme to the public. 

By conceding a consultation period, he will tap public opinion, assess any damage and avoid the perception of governing with stealth. In many ways an anti democratic measure will be shrouded in all the trappings of open government. 

This signifies another characteristic of Muscat’s government – that of not hiding from public opinion as Gonzi did when he increased the salary of MPs and Ministers. Instead he faces public opinion head on using the trappings of consultation to manufacture consent while still calling the shots.

Moreover Muscat, who is not averse to U turns whenever public opinion turns against him, has given himself an exit. For through his first year and a half in power Muscat has shown a remarkable ability to negotiate with public opinion. 

For example facing a backlash on the citizenship scheme, he first took away the secrecy clause and then gained the EU’s green light by introducing a residence clause to what initially was conceived as a pure and shameless sale of citizenship. 

Still, on this occasion Muscat may well be banking on a complacent public opinion on a topic which simply does not excite the public.

Giving hunters their dues

Both Bonnici and Muscat deny any link between postponing next year’s election and the impending referendum on spring hunting.

A time line of events suggests otherwise; that the postponement of local elections is a ruse meant to get a lower turn out at the referendum.

During the MEP elections Joseph Muscat himself raised doubts about whether the referendum would be held.

On August 29, asked directly whether his government was actually considering changing the law, as the hunters had demanded, Muscat said he would wait for the petition collected by hunters asking to parliament to change the referendum law to stop the referendum from taking place.

“There is an ongoing petition by the hunters asking for a change in the law and we will see,” he had said.

He also turned the table on the opposition’s ambiguity on this issue.

“However, this is not a question of law. I think that the Leader of the Opposition is abstaining again on this issue. My position is clearly in favour of spring hunting.”

Yet facing a backlash from environmentalists and the media, who recoiled at the suggestion that the government may turn its back on 40,000 petitioners calling for the referendum, Muscat immediately quelled speculation.

“The referendum process has started and it is not at the discretion of the politician. I appeal for calm, because I am seeing too many attempts, from both lobbies, to fight against the other,” he said on August 30.

Yet he did not refrain from wooing the hunting lobby through the campaign, both by affirming his own position in favour of spring hunting, and through candidates like Cyrus Engerer and Clint Camilleri, who openly supported the hunters’ position against holding the referendum, on the ground that such a referendum would be against minority rights.

Yet Muscat still faced a quandary – while he could not heed the hunters’ demand without losing his hard earned democratic credentials, he could not afford ignoring one of the lobby groups to which he owes his super majority.

A way out for Muscat was offered by the FKNK on June 2, just days after the MEP elections and on the presentation of a 100,000 strong petition by the hunting lobby.

FKNK president Joe Perici Calascione said he expected the referendum not to be linked to any other national votes.

“I expect a stand-alone referendum, because that is when people really voice their opinion on an issue – not when a vote is held together with something completely unrelated.”

The logic behind this ploy is crystal clear: A referendum cannot pass if a majority of voters do not turn out to vote and turnout is bound to be lower than in another issue, for the simple reason that spring hunting may not be high on the list of priorities of an indifferent segment of the electorate.

Moreover a climate of passive but equally effective intimidation by the hunting lobby may well scare off voters from going to cast their ballot if they are denied the cover of voting in another election. The sight of hunters overseeing polling booths may well be the decisive factor in a stand-alone referendum. With half of Malta voting in local elections next year, this strategy would have failed. 

If local elections are postponed the coalition against spring hunting will not only have to present the arguments to convince the electorate to vote yes but it will also have to use very limited resources to convince voters to turn up and vote. 

Yet by ensuring that local elections do not take place next year, the hunters are being given the impression that their voice is being heard.

In fact although the petition was granted official legitimacy by Junior Minister Michael Falzon, it has not even been discussed in parliament. Neither has the FKNK insisted on such a discussion. This may well suggest a compromise. Muscat would not want to harm his democratic credentials by acceding to an anti democratic petition to restrict referenda. But at the same time he has done everything in his power to obstruct the spring hunting referendum from passing by heeding the hunters’ call for a stand alone referendum.

Moreover it is also difficult for the anti hunting brigade to cry wolf.  For complaining against this travesty could well be interpreted by the electorate as a sign of weakness. 

For Muscat can convincingly argue as he has already done.

“The abrogative referendum is an independent process and whether it is held with local elections or not should not be an issue for its supporters,” Muscat told MaltaToday on 20 July.

“If there is such enthusiasm and desire for a referendum to determine whether spring hunting should be banned or not, then [supporters] shouldn’t be troubled.”

Rebutting this argument without showing signs of weakness is difficult for referendum campaigners who have to instil confidence in voters.

Once again by thinking out of the box Muscat has shown his mastery of the political chess game. Yet there are two potential risks of taking such a gamble; the flak of public opinion and a wave of indignation leading to a yes victory in the referendum.

Manufacturing consent

Muscat may have been banking on the lack of any sense of indignation on the part of civil society when he announced his intentions to postpone elections.

One reason for the lack of indignation may well be that it is complicated to make an association between the hunting referendum and local elections. Neither does it seem that people recoil in horror at having the term of some councils extended by a couple of years. 

Moreover it also resonates with the “let us work” (halluna nahdmu) mind-frame in which local elections are seen as a distraction rather than an occasion for the electorate to express itself on local issues, at a moment when planning reforms are being engineered to facilitate business and investment.

Muscat may also be banking on electoral fatigue after the political turbulence which has characterised Maltese politics since 2008.  In this way Muscat could be aiming at a de-escalation of tensions and thus may ride on popular disenchantment with partisan politics while still seeking partisan goals.

The government may also convincingly argue that the overall goal is not in any way to reduce people’s choice but that of streamlining elections in two rounds; general elections followed by local and European elections a year later. 

The big picture

Muscat may well be banking on his successful management of a free market economy, which he inherited from the previous administration. Moreover his ingenious citizenship scheme has enabled him to escape the quandary faced by fellow social democrats like Francois Hollande who are unable to balance promises of greater social expenditure and the tight fiscal parameters of the euro zone. 

In the absence of social discontentment and economic troubles, Muscat may be immune to criticism on his increasingly presidential style of government, and make him strong enough to move democratic goal posts at whim.

In this climate it may also be easy to portray the hunting referendum itself as a distraction orchestrated by a couple of odd balls and eccentrics who miss the bigger picture of turning Malta into a Dubai or Singapore.

Muscat’s gamble

Still Muscat may be underestimating one factor; the growing perception that his government is in debt to strong lobbies, ranging from Armier squatters to building contractors and from energy magnates to gun toting hunters.

For if the referendum is held and won by the coalition against spring hunting, Muscat may well find himself bruised. Yet to avoid this outcome he may well bank on the loyalty of Labour Party voters who provide a bedrock of support, which stifles any attempt at creating cross party support for any civil society initiative perceived to contradict government positions. 

For the latest survey on hunting conducted by MaltaToday after the MEP election already showed Labour voters shifting from a 48% majority against spring hunting to a 48% majority in favour of retaining spring hunting. Still an overall majority of 44% voters, including 32% of Labour voters, would vote against spring hunting in the referendum.

For Labour the choice remains between thwarting the referendum through abstention or actively supporting a no campaign at the risk of alienating a category of liberal and green voters. 

By securing a stand alone referendum for the hunting lobby Muscat may leave both options open, fully knowing that a greater segment of potential yes voters won’t vote in a stand alone referendum. 

Ironically one reason given to justify holding local elections in 2019 is that of increasing turnout in these elections by having them linked to European elections.  The real reason could be that of lowering the turnout in the referendum.