Hunting referendum: No campaigners must get their act together

Like some people, I hail from a family and community where many men hunt. Given this background I am fully aware that the issue of hunting is extremely divisive in our families and our nation. While I can empathize with those who tread carefully on this matter, I was also genuinely looking forward to the civil society initiative that is leading to the abrogative referendum on Malta’s derogation on spring hunting.

I am not at all surprised that a survey conducted by MaltaToday shows that support for the hunting lobby has increased whereas there was a sharp decline for those who wish to abolish spring hunting. The newspaper concludes that “although a strong majority opposes spring hunting in principle, political considerations and apathy among ‘no’ voters have given a boost to the ‘yes’ lobby. “ 

Let me be blunt. ‘No’ campaigners should have predicted that big parties might support hunters (formally or subtly). The question we must ask is, why is it that that ‘no campaign’ is leaving the anti-hunting voters apathetic and cold? Why is the ‘no campaign’ so uninspiring?

Campaigners need to evaluate and re-evaluate when things do not work. There is now very little time left for them to put their act together.  

From where I stand there does not seem to be an adequately cohesive and coordinated ‘No’ campaign. Up to now we have seen ‘no’ campaigners employing a scattergun approach where they are trying to appeal to all segments of Maltese society, namely through sympathetic media outlets. I am sure that civil society actors have long realised that this, on its own, will not lead to increased support.

In my view, the no campaign should have two main positive messages and all speakers should stick to them:  1) To ensure that the Maltese commit to the protection of species and 2) to give Maltese families the opportunity to reclaim the countryside during spring time. A strategy and a variety of tactics should then be employed to target the various voter-segments.

There is nothing positive about the “Shout Out” slogan. The battle cry of the campaign is in itself problematic. While ‘shouting out’ is fine in small awareness-raising campaigns, it is highly inadequate in this national campaign, where most of us have already taken positions and so we may actually become disenchanted if people scream futile messages at us.

It has long been evident that the biggest challenge for ‘no’ supporters is to bring out the vote. The hunting lobby has long been aware that this is might be difficult for those seeking to stop spring hunting; in fact hunters are hoping for a low turnout.

In the world of public relations it is often assumed that in some instances you need to ‘whisper not shout’. Whispering is precisely what the hunting lobby is doing. They are actively spreading rumours about the so-called repercussions on minorities. Many do not buy this, but other whisper campaigns have caused ample scaremongering among hobbyists.

‘No’ campaigners still need to inspire massive engagement with their campaign; they need to get people talking and they need to get them walking to the polling stations. One solution is to find a unifying and well-liked lead figure who has ample charisma to win the hearts and minds of minds of electors, as in the case of Dr Deborah Schembri during the divorce referendum.

More attention must be taken to avoid a condescending stance that will not score any points with a big portion of the electorate. While it is understandable that the hunting issue is related to lifestyle, culture and distinctions related to taste, any classist undertones and arrogant statements will be extremely damaging.

Stereotyping all hunters as if they were backward, irrational Neanderthal machos, will not endear the ‘no campaign’ to their wives, children and siblings. These are a significant constituency. In a society that is becoming increasingly complex, ‘no’ campaigners should not assume that hunters still automatically command the loyalty of their clan.

After all the effort that when into collecting signatures and all the pressure to hold the referendum, the ‘no’ side must appear better prepared and more cohesive. If this initiative is defeated, it is likely that there will be massive implications for the environment and for the role of civil society in this country.