Spring hunting referendum: change we can believe in

The directive given to hunters to deny access to members of the Ramblers' Association as retribution against this organization's support for a spring hunting referendum, exposes the true colours of the hunting lobby: vindictive and arrogant.  

But by issuing such a directive against countryside walks by harmless and peaceful ramblers, the hunting lobby has once again committed hara-kiri. By threatening ramblers, the FKNK highlighted another important issue: the occupation of our countryside by hunters and trappers. In short, once again the FKNK's antics are the best advert for the anti-hunting cause.

Surely the referendum has its risks, for collecting 34,000 signatures is no joke. The risk of the referendum not making it due to high rates of abstention exists. But it could serve as a formidable rallying cry. It also gives a concrete goal to thousands of voters who feel that their voice on issues like hunting is never heard. Unlike the rent referendum once proposed by AD, hunting is an issue people feel very strongly about. Added to this is the advantage that in a referendum the government of the country is not at stake and therefore people will vote according to their whim.

The Spring hunting referendum campaign could also represent a much needed awakening of civil society which comes in a period where the hunting and construction lobby seem to have taken a free ride on Labour's promise of change. 

Surely this was clear for all and sundry from before the election characterized by Labour's pandering to developers and pre electoral pacts with hunters and Armier squatters. Many still voted for a change in government simply because they could not risk the prospect of having the Nationalist Party back in office for reasons which have nothing to do with hunting, construction and bizarre ideas like land reclamation and bridges to Gozo.  

Ironically before 2008, it was the PN which faced civil society opposition and had to backtrack on projects like Ramla l-Hamra and Xaghra l-Hamra golf course after opening the floodgates for development through the extension of building zones and the liberalization of building heights. Thanks to the public uproar, captured by the Flimkien Ghall-Ambjent Ahjar movement, before the 2008 election, the re-elected Gonzi government backed of proposing controversial projects even if it retained the status quo on hunting. MEPA still issued some controversial projects but the perception was that it was becoming stricter on ODZs and less cozy with developers.  Unfortunately in the absence of a big issue, civil society retreated to the background. With Labour pandering to developers and hunting before the 2013 elections, things seem to have gone full circle.

Similarly to Gonzi in 2005 and 2006, Muscat seems to think that construction can help in kick-starting the economic engine. In that period the Gonzi government proposed land reclamation, a golf course, extended building zones and liberalized building heights. The newly elected Muscat government has produced its own list of environmental threats: a bridge between Malta and Gozo, agro-tourism projects in ODZs, a land reclamation project and a general shifting of goalposts to accommodate the developers' lobby. On hunting, after waiving the spring hunting license fee, Labour may well have already discovered that certain alliances are best avoided due to the PR backlash. Hunting also leaves the PN in a quandary, for a segment of its middle class voters have a natural antipathy towards redneck hunters.

One note of caution is due. Past experience shows that the key to civil society's success is the creation of wide and horizontal alliances on single issues, which serve as a rallying cry for civil society.

Respecting the diversity between radical activists with a wider vision of social change, green party activists who have a wider political agenda, and conservationists with a strictly limited environmental agenda is a key to success for any movement.

Some of the most successful campaigns like that of the Front Kontra l-Golf Kors were in the fact the result of an alliance between groups and individuals from all possible backgrounds which respected this diversity. Ironically be respecting diversity, it is even more likely to create a camaraderie between a new generation of activists, which could be a catalyst for change with wider political implications. For history is full of examples (Gezi park in Turkey is a clear example) of environmental issues which served as catalysts for wider movements for change. 

A referendum could also have a similar impact. Just as the divorce referendum changed the Maltese landscape on church-state relations, a referendum on hunting may well have a wider impact on the relationship between politics and lobby groups like hunters, squatters and contractors.