Simon the irrelevant?

There is a perfectly logical argument for the PN and Simon Busuttil not to say ‘no’ to hunting in spring – to defend the derogation from the ban on spring hunting.

It was a PN government which first derogated from EU law to allow a practice outlawed in Europe, so that spring hunting can be retained in Malta.

It was also a PN government that fought to retain the derogation when this was challenged by the European Commission in front of the European Court of Justice.

In view of the past, should Busuttil support the derogation from the Birds Directive – like Muscat?

The answer is simple. Not taking a position is not an option, especially in view of the lethal consequences of Busuttil’s abstention on civil unions. But what about a yes or a no?

Just imagine how that segment of the liberal Nationalist vote would react to Busuttil pronouncing himself in favour of spring hunting – or in favour of the derogation. Referenda are symbolic moments where voters expect leadership and where social alliances are formed. In the divorce referendum it was Muscat who gambled. It was a gamble, which paid off in terms of strategic liberal votes.

For the PN this referendum represents an opportunity to reach out to the liberal and environmentalist vote. This vote may be numerically small, but one which is highly influential, which also tends to inhabit influential spheres of social life – for example, schools, media, culture, and public life.

It could be an occasion for Busuttil to stick his neck out on an issue where voters alienated by previous PN administrations may start seeing him as a principled leader who stands for something, and not someone who just reacts negatively to whatever Labour does. If Busuttil wants to break with the ‘greenwash’ past of the Gonzi administration, this is a golden opportunity.

The current quandary could risk Busuttil exposing his weakness – that of not taking a risk. On other issues, he has been legalistic. For example, he justified his stance against pushbacks on the basis that they were deemed illegal by the European Court of Human Rights – not because it was immoral. He himself had not condemned Berlusconi’s pushbacks before these were deemed to be illegal.

For voters like me, his sobriety and lack of personalism are an asset compared to Muscat’s Bonapartism and exuberance. I find Muscat’s constant changes in goalposts on various issues like migration and hunting disorienting.

But while Muscat toyed with postponing the local elections to 2019 to sink the hunting referendum, his flexibility on the issue makes it difficult for the Opposition to corner him. Busuttil may be the exact opposite: his rigid frame of mind makes him a vulnerable target.

Instead of questioning Muscat, people who are against hunting are now asking questions on Busuttil.

Many are saying, ‘I disagree with Muscat but at least he is taking a stand’. And what should have been a poisoned chalice for the prime minister who brokered a pact with the hunting lobby, now could turn into a minefield for the dilly-dallying Busuttil. The referendum that should have exposed contradictions in the PL’s hegemonic bloc, now risks alienating more voters from the PN.

And despite the fact that it has been long coming, the PN appears surprised.

Of course I agree with Busuttil that the PN should discuss this issue before he commits himself on it.  That’s how real parties work. On the other hand, Muscat’s assertion that his party won’t be taking a position simply exposes his conception of democracy: one where parties are substituted by a movement of cheerleaders for a presidential leader.

So what kind of debate will the PN have?  A rubber-stamping exercise for a decision already taken, or a vote taken by the executive or the general council?

Some could argue that if Busuttil does not support the abolitionist campaign could be a blessing, since otherwise Labour voters might be more inclined to support Muscat’s pro-hunting stance.

I doubt it. Busuttil will simply be seen as having been too cautious to stick his neck out to support the anti-spring hunting campaign. In politics calculating politicians are often rewarded. But it’s the principled ones who are liked.