Referendum? Me? Never!

When I heard that Lawrence Gonzi had proposed a referendum to abolish spring hunting, my first reaction was... damn, that was clever!

OK, to be fair I was initially under the impression (having read about the debate, but not actually watched it) that Gonzi had come up with this idea all by himself. I now know that this was not the case at all: it was a question put to him by Herman Grech, and which he seemed to answer with a rather off-the-cuff, unrehearsed affirmative.

But initially I didn't know that; and from this perspective it looked momentarily as though Lawrence Gonzi had produced a sudden, unexpected trump card from up his sleeve... throwing a spanner into the works of a campaign which (let's face it) hasn't exactly been very kind to the PN of late, and which was at that point lumbering towards a farcically predictable conclusion anyway.

In fact, before my initial misapprehension was cleared up, I sincerely thought the Prime Minister had come up with this proposal precisely for this reason - i.e., as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to block a massive voter haemorrhage to the PL, and to somehow turn around the increasingly negative perceptions of the PN among a sizeable portion of its own traditional voter-base.

Hence my reaction. If this were true, it would have marked a pivotal milestone in the evolution of the Nationalist Party: a first step towards breaking the decades-old perception of a party which has (bizarrely, it must be said) reduced itself to little more than an extension of the hunting lobby.... representing its interests in Europe, and even risking fines by the Commission (which would be paid by us all, and not just by hunters) for pandering to its demands.

All this had been achieved at a steadily mounting cost for the PN: i.e., the increasing frustration and disbelief of thousands of Nationalists who in reality want to see spring hunting abolished - even if, on balance, the issue is simply not important enough in their eyes to base a voting decision upon.

So by appearing to suggest a referendum precisely now, Gonzi seemed to be rewriting the script at the eleventh hour... and an interesting new draft it was too: supplying at least one reason for these disgruntled voters to return to the fold, while simultaneously placing the Opposition leader in the awkward position of having to reject a proposal that would be welcomed in open arms by the same category of voter.

The same move would simultaneously neutralise any compelling reason for the same disgruntled Nationalists to vote AD instead of PN: at least, on this one issue alone. So all things told: I honestly can't think of a more thorough and decisive victory on all fronts for the PN... if only it were true.

But of course that's not how it really happened. Now we know that the reality is far closer in spirit to the typical Gonzi we have more or less grown used to in the past decade: i.e., the Gonzi who sporadically shoots his mouth off without actually thinking through the implications of his own outbursts... often creating a veritable mess in the process, which the rest of the party would have to step in and clean up.

This is the same Lawrence Gonzi who had so very nonchalantly ambled out of parliament one fine day in 2010, to announce to a small group of shell-shocked journalists that, in his own personal view, the divorce issue was "too big to be decided by 65 people."

On the basis of that one thoughtless remark alone- and despite howls of protestation from the direction of Eddie Fenech Adami, who evidently couldn't believe how his own chosen successor would be guilty of such a staggering miscalculation - a referendum which would spell the PN's own discomfiture became something of an unstoppable force in its own right (though of course - having belatedly realised the implications of his mistake - Gonzi tried to stop it anyway, and failed).

It was this same Lawrence Gonzi who arbitrarily identified a stretch of land at Manikata as a site for a golf course (having very unwisely declared his intention, in 2004, to build at least two such facilities on both Malta and Gozo).

Well, we all know how that one worked out in the end. On closer scrutiny it turned out that Gonzi had proposed the area known as ix-Xaghra l-Ahmar without even bothering to carry out any of the dozens of studies that would be required to determine its suitability for the game of golf.

He also spectacularly overlooked the existence of an aquifer under the same area: not to mention an entire community of farmers whose families had tilled that land for generations... and who were unceremoniously booted off the premises for as long as the futile discussion lasted.

The upshot is that - much unnecessary tension and several very expensive studies later - we of course found out that the area chosen by Gonzi was (surprise, surprise) hopelessly unsuitable for the project, which was duly shelved as a result. And 10 years later, there is no still sign of the promised two new golf courses anywhere else on the islands. 

To say that this man has had a remarkably consistent habit of talking first, thinking afterwards (if at all), and landing the rest of the country in the proverbial soup as a result of his poorly thought-through exercises in fantasy... Oh, I suppose if I were to actually say that in this article, I would instantly be accused of being a Laburist, or having a 'red face', or something equally childish and obnoxious.

So let's just say that when the same Gonzi was suddenly heard agreeing to a spring hunting referendum, there were two distinct possibilities by way of interpretation.

One: it was a pre-planned strategy, whereby the PN had planted that question in a debate in order to give at least one sizeable voter segment a good reason to vote PN.

Two: it was a question that took the Prime Minister completely by surprise, and which he answered without thinking (as, let's face it, he tends to do so often).

Under normal circumstances I would leave you all to decide for yourselves. But there's no need, because less than a day later - i.e., after the hunters made the predictable move of aligning themselves with Labour as a result (thus giving us all one other good reason not to vote for Muscat's movement of progressives, etc.) - that the PN stepped in to clean up the mess made by its leader.

"The PN is in favour of sustainable hunting and trapping within the parameters of law, and we deny the false allegation that we want to abolish hunting in a referendum," the party said in a terse statement yesterday.

And thus, in a flash, the fleeting vision of a truly new way of doing politics was duly aborted, and we found ourselves all the way back to square one: i.e., two parties vying to outdo each other with promises to appeal to a small but influential lobby group, while disregarding a massive swathe of the population which holds spring hunting to be a clear violation of the most basic, entry-level conservation mores.

But there is a small difference this time around. Again, I stress that I simply do not know whether Gonzi replied to that question with a view to winning back a few of the votes that his past hunting decisions had pushed away from the PN... or whether he just shot his mouth off as usual. What I do know, however, is that - intentionally or otherwise - he suddenly made 'voting PN' look like a more worthwhile thing to do than it has been for ages.

OK, this is just me talking now - I have no idea how widely shared this impression is out there - but a referendum on this topic is a seriously attractive proposition for any number of reasons. Short of a miracle, I just don't see the hunting lobby pulling it off - and for reasons which are too cumbersome for this article, nor do I see any other way Malta's nasty habit of shooting birds during the nesting season (which is so goddamn WRONG on so many counts) could finally be brought to an end.

Would this promise have been enough to give the PN at least a fighting chance to come out on top? I honestly don't know - though I do find it unlikely. But now that I have seen the PN's reaction - and now that I know that, even if Gonzi did intend to angle for the anti-hunting vote, his own party will clearly overrule him... well, that one fleeting reason to actually vote for the PN has evaporated before it even had a chance to grow.

And yes, there may well be others - and more important ones, too... though it all really depends on whether you believe in the PN's propaganda. But the question that mystifies me in all this is is... what did the PN actually gain from issuing that statement yesterday? Having imparted the impression (however unwittingly) that a new Gonzi government might reconsider its commitment to allow spring hunting - and having whetted our appetite with the very attractive idea of a referendum on the subject - what could have possibly been gained by snatching away that vision from before our very eyes?

I have given that question a lot of thought, and I honestly can't for the life of me answer it. The hunters themselves are unlikely to have been much impressed by the PN's counter-statement yesterday; after all, this is the same PN which had written personal letters to them all (signed by Fenech Adami) with assurances that spring hunting would be kept unchanged after EU accession. And besides: with Gonzi saying one thing and the PN saying another, it is really quite impossible to place your faith in either these days.

So in the end the hunters will simply gravitate back towards Labour (which is where they have always felt most at home anyway), while the conservationists will either vote AD - if, that is, they really do base their votes on hunting - or fall back to their permanent, default state of disillusionment: hoping against hope that one day, 'their' party will actually decide to represent 'their' views in Parliament.

How any of this can possibly work out to the PN's advantage remains at best a mystery. If anyone has any suggestion, don't hesitate to fire away...