ANALYSIS | Abela’s hobbyist gambit: manufacturing a threat to rally rural voters

The Labour government has latched onto the unintended consequences of a botched PN motion to enshrine environmental rights in the Constitution by proposing its own constitutional amendment aimed at protecting traditions and hobbies. 

Crucially, it remains unclear whether this will take the form of a token reference in Chapter Two of the Constitution — which serves as a ‘declaration of principles’ that are not enforceable — or whether Abela intends to entrench the enjoyment of hobbies as a constitutional right.  

For while a vague reference to traditions and hobbies alongside the protection of artisanal trades and the state’s duty to protect and safeguard the environment in Chapter Two would have little impact on future regulations to govern hobbies like hunting, recognition as an enforceable right could enable hobbyists to invoke the clause to seek a legal remedy against future restrictions. 

Deconstructing Labour’s narrative

The narrative pushed by Labour was that the PN’s amendment would make it possible for citizens to seek legal redress against hobbies or traditions that may impinge on their environmental rights. Those raising the alarm ranged from motorsport enthusiasts to hunters and pyrotechnic organisations and bizarelly even sports associations and journalists.

While the PN was clearly caught off guard and unprepared for this curveball thrown by Labour — which it could have anticipated — the folksy reaction to its move has all the markings of an orchestrated campaign to conjure up a wildly exaggerated threat to hobbies.   

Instead of addressing valid concerns by foolproofing the PN’s amendment to rule out frivolous complaints leading to injunctions not based on scientific facts, Abela wants to push through an amendment that risks turning the Constitution into a dumpster for everybody’s fetishes.  

Abela even had the cheek to lash out at what he described as efforts to create conflict between environmentalists and those who engage in traditional pastimes, when it is his government that is pushing this narrative.

In reality, this comes at a time when environmentalists are in sync with popular concerns on the impact of construction on daily life — an issue that, at least in theory, should put them on the same page as countryside hobbyists whose recreational spaces are also being taken up by urban sprawl.

Still, there is political logic to Abela’s strategic move. Here are the main reasons for it:

1) This move could split PN voters and rekindle Labour’s historic alliance with hunters

Introducing an enforceable  constitutional safeguard for hunting and other traditions would require a two thirds majority, which means that it can only be enacted if the PN gives its consent. But such a vote could be a minefield for the opposition.

Surveys before the spring hunting referendum showed that over two-thirds of PN voters favoured a spring hunting ban. Yet a strong minority of PN voters, particularly in rural areas, opposed this ban. The referendum was ultimately lost by a whisker, thanks to a strong pro-hunting vote in Gozo.

That victory crowned an effective campaign in which hunters successfully teamed up with other hobbyists apprehensive that they might be next, crucially backed by Labour. Political history suggests that hunters are one of the few single-issue lobbies capable of swinging elections.

Curiously, it was Labour that first suffered the brunt of hunters’ anger when Dom Mintoff introduced a closed season in 1980. But Labour’s promise to roll back PN-era hunting regulations in the 1990s was a major factor in its 1996 electoral victory, forcing the PN to sign its own pact with the hunting lobby in 1998.

Since then, Labour has actively courted hunters and rural voters who traditionally leaned towards the PN as a bulwark of traditional values but were apprehensive of EU membership — which Labour initially opposed. Even today, hunting remains a quandary for the PN: any sign that it represents a threat to the pastime could penalise it in crucial districts like Gozo and the south-east, which it desperately needs to win back.

In this sense, if the constitutional reference to hobbies goes beyond a token recognition in Chapter Two, things could get messy for the PN. Any vote on a constitutional amendment to enshrine hobbies and traditions would pose a major dilemma: shooting it down would alienate a segment of voters, but cosying up to hunters could push others towards Momentum or ADPD.

2) It could provoke a cringe reaction that reinforces Abela’s narrative.

Talk of Abela’s constitutional amendment could elicit reactions from those who cringe at the omnipotence of the hunting lobby, giving Abela the opportunity to depict the threat to hobbies as a real one.

The PN may officially fend off Abela’s challenge or even endorse it to avoid electoral damage, especially if this is limited to a token gesture. But this will not stop people, including some associated with the party, from speaking out against the travesty on social media, especially if it takes the form of an enforceable right.

As it often does, Labour will be busy singling out the “extremists” opposed to its constitutional plans while emphasising their links to the so-called PN establishment. In this sense, Abela could use the controversy triggered by his own actions to further endear himself with lobbies angered by citizens who stand in their way.

3) In a time of uncertainty triggered by unprecedented demographic and social change, Abela is allying these fears by presenting himself as a defender of traditions.

Abela’s move also taps into fears of social change triggered by Malta’s shifting demography.

It was no surprise that two weeks ago Abela conjured the image of some “foreigner” or expat using the PN’s amendment to stop feasts in Malta. He later retracted the comment, saying he could have used a better example — but there was a logic to his statement.

At a time when Malta is undergoing rapid demographic change, with many new residents coming from more secular and environmentally conscious EU countries, a segment of the population is clinging to tradition as a bulwark against social transformation.

Of course, Abela is once again conjuring forces he may not be able to control. For why stop at hobbies and traditions, and not insulate Malta from any kind of change — including progressive reforms once championed by Labour?

4) This made-up controversy offers a convenient distraction from the one on Abela’s overhaul of the planning system.

Finally, the move provides a distraction from the ongoing controversy over planning laws and aims to perpetuate the stereotype of environmentalists as urbanites detached from local traditions and ways of life.

With concern over overdevelopment and the environment rising not just nationally but also in rural villages and Gozo, environmental groups can now mobilise thousands from all walks of life against Abela’s planning shake-up.

Some environmentalists will naturally recoil at the suggestion of enshrining hunting as a constitutionally protected activity — but in doing so, they risk playing into Abela’s divide-and-rule tactics.

That said, environmental groups, including BirdLife, have never lobbied for the abolition of any hobby or tradition, and so far, none have taken the bait. Still, instead of teaming up with environmentalists to oppose overdevelopment, single-minded hobbyists — especially hunters — seem more interested in protecting their turf from a largely imaginary threat.

Opening a can of worms

For these four reasons Abela’s political calculation may well boost Labour’s fortunes, especially in districts where the hunting lobby is strong. But it could also open a can of worms.

Lawmakers will now have to define clearly which hobbies and traditions merit constitutional protection — and to what level. Protecting a tradition does not preclude the introduction of scientifically grounded regulations or EU-driven measures aimed at mitigating environmental impacts on health and wildlife. 

One can still have hunting without allowing it in spring, and one can still have feasts that address safety concerns raised by studies — such as those authored by respected academics like university rector Alfred Vella on fireworks. Even the motorsport track is currently the subject of studies on noise impacts, particularly on the nearby Natura 2000 site.

Moreover, all permitted human activities which have an impact on nature are regulated.  For example, you still need an environmental permit to organise an activity in protected areas.  And while hunting is allowed one is not allowed to shoot in any time of the year or at anything which flies in the sky.  

And while Abela’s move may be effective in arresting the haemorrhage to the PN among a particular sector of society, his antics may further alienate more progressive elements within Labour who increasingly find it hard to identify with a party more interested in protecting traditions than in pushing the boundaries of civil liberties and secularism by for example introducing the Equality bill to prohibit discrimination in all spheres of life.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that amendments to the declaration of principles in Chapter 2 of the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority. Chapter 2 is non-enforceable. If the protection of hobbies is to be enforceable it will have to be included in another section of the Constitution and will require a two-thirds majority.