Il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa: referendum ieħor?

 

F’konferenza tal-aħbarijiet illum il-Birdlife qalet li qed tikkunsidra jekk għandhiex tibda t-triq biex jissejjaħ referendum abrogattiv ieħor dwar il-kaċċa.

Il-Birdlife hi motivata mill-attitudni tal-Gvern li jfittex kontinwament li jikkuntenta lill-kaċċaturi. F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, tgħid il-Birdlife, m’għandiex triq oħra. Għax la ma tistax tasal bir-raġuni mal-Gvern, tipprova tasal bil-vot permezz ta’ referendum.

Ir-referendum tal-2015 dwar il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa ntilef bi ftit: tikka iktar minn 2000 vot. Il-Birdlife taħseb li r-riżultat din id-darba jkun differenti minħabba li l-ebda wieħed mill-mexxejja politiċi m’hu qed jirrappresenta l-interessi tal-ambjent.

L-analiżi biex ikun ġustifikat referendum abrogattiv ieħor dwar il-kaċċa (fir-rebbiegħa) trid tibda minn analiżi profonda tar-referendum tal-2015. Trid tkun analiżi li twassal biex wieħed jifhem sewwasew x’ġara.

Jiena naqbel li l-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa tieqaf illum qabel għada imma għadni mhux konvint li d-diffikultajiet li wasslu għat-telfien tar-referendum abrogattiv tal-2015 għad jistgħu jingħelbu f’dan il-mument. Il-ħidma li trid issir hi kbira ħafna.

Huwa tajjeb li l-Birdlife iżżomm l-arma ta’ referendum abrogattiv bħala oġġettiv għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, probabbilment li din hi l-unika triq prattika. Imma l-ostakli mhumiex żgħar u biex naslu mhux faċli daqskemm wieħed jista’ jaħseb.

L-esperjenza tgħallimna kontinwament li filwaqt li l-opposizzjoni għall-kaċċa hi kbira, meta niġu għall-vot ikun hemm kwantitá ta’ persuni li joqgħodu lura u dan għal elf raġuni. Hekk ġara fl-2015 u wisq nibża’ li s-sitwazzjoni għadha sostanzjalment l-istess.

Fl-2015, l-ambjent taħt assedju. Fl-2016 l-assedju ikompli.

 

Is-sena 2015 kienet waħda li fiha l-ambjent kien taħt assedju. Assedju li bla dubju ser jintensifika ruħu matul is-sena d-dieħla. Għax ma hemm l-ebda dubju li l-aġenda tal-Labour hi waħda kontra l-ambjent.

Bla dubju mument importanti fl-2015 kien ir-referendum abrogattiv dwar il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa. Referendum li intilef bi sbrixx imma li xorta wassal messaġġ qawwi, prinċipalment minħabba li huwa riżultat li nkiseb minkejja li kemm il-PN kif ukoll il-PL dejjem appoġġaw il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa.

Wara spikka il-każ taż-Żonqor li wassal għal dimostrazzjoni kbira ġol-Belt. Iktar tard il-Gvern ipprova jagħti l-impressjoni li kien qed jagħti kaz u dan billi ċċaqlaq ftit.

Il-qagħda tat-trasport pubbliku matul l-2015 tjibiet ftit imma għadha lura ħafna minn dak li jixraqlu u għandu bżonn dan il-pajjiż. Hi l-unika tama li tista’ tnaqqas il-pressjoni taż-żieda tal-karozzi fit-toroq. Hi l-unika tama għal titjib fil-kwalità tal-arja. Inutli jwaħħlu fil-ħinijiet tal-ftuħ tal-iskejjel.

Matul l-2015 l-ilma tax-xita flok ma jinġabar fi bjar li qatt ma saru, baqa’ jintefa’ fit-toroq. Issa li x-xogħol fuq il-mini taħt l-art ġie konkluż il-periklu fit-toroq ser jonqos għax il-parti l-kbira tal-ilma ser jispiċċa l-baħar. Il-flus li intefqgħu fuq dawn il-mini kienu fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom flus moħlija. Kien ikun iktar għaqli kieku intefqgħu biex l-ilma jinġabar flok biex jintrema.

F’nofs dawn l-aħbarijiet negattivi kollha ġiet ippubblikata l-enċiklika ambjentali tal-Papa Franġisku. Fiha tinħass sewwa t-togħma Latino-Amerikana ta’ Leonardo Boff li tenfasizza r-rabta bejn il-faqar u t-tħassir ambjentali. Hemm tama li din l-enċiklika tista’ tkun ta’ siwi biex iktar nies jiftħu għajnejhom.

F’Ġunju l-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni qalilna li l-PN fil-Gvern għamel diversi żbalji ambjentali u li jixtieq li jibda paġna ġdida. Din id-dikjarazzjoni ta’ Busuttil tikkuntrasta ma dak li ntqal fir-rapport tal-PN dwar it-telfa fejn ġie emfasizzat li l-PN kien vittma ta’ sabutaġġ minn dawk maħtura biex imexxu (inkluż ovvjament mill-MEPA).

Il-battalja tat-torrijiet għadha magħna. Preżentement hemm pendenti żewġ applikazzjonijiet f’tas-Sliema, waħda f’Townsquare (38 sular) u oħra f’Fort Cambridge (40 sular). Ir-residenti, li bħal dejjem jispiċċaw iġorru l-konsegwenzi ta’ dawn id-deċiżjonijiet, huma injorati.

Kellna t-tniġġiż fil-baħar. Diversi inċidenti fil-Port ta’ Marsaxlokk li bihom ġie ikkonfermat, jekk qatt kien hemm ħtieġa ta’ dan, li l-Bajja s-Sabiħa m’għandhiex iktar sabiħa. Dan minħabba li issa l-port sar definittivament wieħed industrijali. L-unika ħaġa li jonqos huwa t-tanker sorġut b’mod permanenti fil-port biex fih jinħażen il-gass.

Nhar is-Sibt jorħos il-prezz tal-petrol u d-diesel. Għal uħud imissu ilu li raħas. Forsi kien ikun aħjar li ma raħas xejn. Hemm bżonn kull mezz possibli biex jonqsu l-karozzi mit-toroq. Il-prezz tal-fuel hu wieħed minn diversi miżuri li jekk użati bil-għaqal jistgħu jagħtu frott. Il-problema imma, sfortunatament hi li ma hemmx volontà politika.

IL-MEPA ser tinqasam. L-ippjanar għalih u l-ambjent għalih. Mhux ser isir wisq ġid b’din il-miżura għax is-saħħa amministrattiva li għandu pajjiż żgħir ġejja miċ-ċokon tiegħu. Meta taqsam l-awtorita f’biċċiet tkun ferm inqas effettiv. Hekk ser jiġri. Il-MEPA ma kienitx qed taħdem sewwa għax ma ħallewiex taħdem sewwa. Għax kienet imxekkla minn bordijiet li jew ma jifhmux inkella b’aġenda moħbija.

Dan hu l-wirt li s-sena 2015 ser tħalli lis-sena 2016. L-unika ħaġa pożittiva hi li bil-mod qed tiżviluppa kuxjenza ambjentali fost il-ġenerazzjonijiet li tielgħin.

Is-sena t-tajba? Forsi.

Is the abrogative referendum under threat ?

 

Until Alternattiva Demokratika announced the abrogative referendum campaign  on spring hunting almost two years ago, few Maltese citizens were aware that they had such a right.  Now that this right has been used for the first time since it has been placed on the statute book, it is apparently under threat.

The hunters’ lobby is now aiming at curtailing the right to an abrogative referendum. The hunters maintain that when the Referenda Act was applied in trying to abrogate the regulations permitting spring hunting it was aiming at their rights – “minority rights” they said.

Hunters had presented these same arguments though their representatives for the consideration of the Constitutional Court, which shot them down last January. In fact the Constitutional Court in paragraphs 51 to 54 of its 24-page decision, considers this very point. The hunters, said the Constitutional Court, claim that their rights are minority rights. However no potential breach of a provision of the Constitution of Malta or of the European Convention of Human Rights have been indicated in their submissions. The Constitutional Court goes on to say the following :

“It is right to emphasise that in implementing majority rule the rights of the minority should be respected. However this respect is not attained, as suggested by the Federation [FKNK] by obstructing people from expressing themselves through a referendum.”  [Tassew illi d-dritt tal-maġġoranza għandu jitwettaq b’rispett lejn id-dritt tal-minoranza, iżda dan ir-rispett ma jinkisibx billi, kif trid il-Federazzjoni, il-poplu ma jitħalliex isemma’ leħnu f’referendum.]

This same argument  was also the subject of a petition to Parliament organised by the hunters’ lobby and presented in Parliament by Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon some months ago.  In recent days, comments have been made indicating that shortly we may be hearing of the government’s reactions to this petition. These reactions will most probably be in the form of proposals for amendments to the Referenda Act of 1973, in particular amendments to the provisions regulating the holding of an abrogative referendum – provisions which were originally approved by Parliament in 1996 and brought in force in 1998.

The provisions of  the Referenda Act in Malta providing for the holding of an abrogative referendum are already very restrictive.  From what has been stated, hunters want such provisions to be even more restrictive.  In this sense they have already made public a proposal that a definite time window within which signatures for an abrogative referendum have to be collected has to be established.  In Italian legislation, for example, there exists a 90-day window within which the collection of signatures has to be carried out. Such a time window may be a reasonable proposal within the Italian legal system, but then in Italy the number of voter signatures required to trigger the abrogative referendum process is proportionately much lower than that required in Malta.

The number of signatures required to kick-start the abrogative referendum process in Malta is 10 per cent of the registered voters. This currently stands at slightly under 34,000 signatures. In Italy, by contrast, half-a-million signatures – or the consent of five regional councils – is required. The number  of signatures required in Italy amount to approximately one per cent of the electorate, meaning that the corresponding requirement in Malta is ten times as much!

I will not speculate over how the government will seek to translate the hunters’ petition into legislation. I have limited myself to one specific proposal.

It is still unclear as to what type of amendments to the Referenda Act will be submitted by government. One thing is, however, very clear:  we need to keep our eyes wide open to ensure that our rights are not reduced.

The abrogative referendum is an important tool in our democratic society, even though it has been made use of only once in its 19-year existence.  Let us hope that government will not succumb to pressures to have it diluted or removed.

published in The Malta Indpendent on Sunday : 19 April 2015

Ir-referendum : dawk li ma vvutawx

 

Smajt u qrajt diversi kummenti ta’ tmaqdir kontra dawk li ma ġabrux il-vot, inkella li ma vvutawx. Dawn il-kummenti fil-fehma tiegħi naħseb li huma inġusti. Għandna nirrispettaw l-għażla li għamlu dawn il-votanti wkoll.

Dawk li ma ġabrux il-vot, inkella kien għandhom u m’għamlux użu minn għandhom ir-raġunijiet tagħhom biex waslu għal din id-deċiżjoni. Raġunijiet li probabbilment ma naqblux magħhom, imma li għandhom kull dritt għalihom.

Hemm uħud minn dawn il-votanti li ma jaqblux mar-referendum fil-prinċipju. Dawn jidhrilhom li huwa l-Gvern, direttament inkella  permezz tal-Parlament , li għandu jieħu d-deċiżjonijiet. L-idea tal-parteċipazzjoni demokratika tal-poplu, għal dawn il-persuni, għaldaqstant, hi waħda limitata. Għax għalihom inti tista’ taqbel jew ma taqbilx mal-pakkett politiku kollu kif imfisser fil-manifest elettorali tal-partiti politiċi fl-elezzjoni ġenerali. Bejn l-elezzjonijiet, imbagħad, inti ma’ jkollokx vuċi.

Fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom, dawk li ma vvutawx dehrilhom li la kellhom jivvutaw IVA u l-anqas setgħu jivvutaw LE.  Probabbilment li waslu għal din il-konklużjoni għaliex ħadd ma ikkonvinċihom fuq l-utilità demokratika tal-parteċipazzjoni tagħhom. Inkella għax ma interessahomx li jsegwu d-dibattitu. Inkella dehrilhom li ma kellhomx ħin x’jaħlu dwar l-għasafar.

Kienet x’kienet ir-raġuni biex madwar 25% tal-votanti Maltin ma għamlux użu mid-dritt li jivvutaw għandna l-obbligu li nirrispettaw id-deċiżjoni tagħhom.

Aħna poplu li nħobbu nivvutaw. Għandna għatx kbir u kontinwu biex nipparteċipaw fid-deċiżjonijiet li jieħu dan il-pajjiż. Għalhekk ħafna ddejqu li 25% tal-votanti kellhom opportunità u ma għamlux użu minnha.

Imma għandna ukoll ikollna sodisfazzjoni illi fir-referendum abrogattiv tal-11 t’April ipparteċipaw 75% ta’ dawk li kellhom dritt. Fid-dinja demokratika dan hu persentaġġ għoli ħafna  parteċipazzjoni, iktar u iktar meta wieħed iqis li s-suġġett (il-ħarsien tal-għasafar fir-rebbiegħa) mhuwiex meqjus bħala ta’ xi importanza kbira mill-parti l-kbira tan-nies. Xi snin ilu, fl-Italja, f’referendum abrogattiv simili pparteċipaw madwar 42% tal-votanti, inqas mill-kworum rikjest ta’ 50%.

Imma l-kotra tal-votanti Maltin ipparteċipat għax għarfet illi din hi għodda demokratika importanti. Darba oħra, forsi, jkunu konvinti iktar votanti biex jipparteċipaw. Jiddependi minna jekk id-demokrazija tagħna għandhiex tibqa’ ħajja.

Ir-referendum u l-partiti politiċi (3)

Anke Simon Busuttil qal li hu kien ser jivvota IVA għax ħass l-obbligu li jiddefendi l-posizzjoni dwar id-deroga li li ħa l-PN fil-Gvern.  B’din id-dikjarazzjoni Simon Busuttil ipprova jilagħab mossa politika li biha jevita li minn kmieni d-diskussjoni pubblika dwar ir-referendum tispiċċa battalja bejn il-PN u l-Labour.

Simon Busuttil għażel posizzjoni tattika flok posizzjoni fuq prinċipji politiċi u valuri. Ħadd ma ħa gost b’dak li qal. Għax in-nies tippreferi ħafna kieku jitkellem ċar, flok joqgħod jilgħab bil-kliem. Kien hemm opposizzjoni qawwija internament fil-PN għal din il-posizzjoni. Din l-opposizzjoni, li ma rnexxietx, jiena infurmat li kienet immexxija minn ex-Ministru.

Araw ftit x’qalulu lil Simon fuq il-facebook wall tiegħu wara li ħa posizzjoni pubblika favur l-IVA:

 

Ir-referendum u l-partiti politiċi (2)

Joseph Muscat qal li hu kien ser jivvota IVA. Qal ukoll li l-Partit Laburista ma kienx ser jinvolvi ruħu fil-kampanja referendarja.

L-istrateġija politika tal-Partit Laburista kienet waħda ċara ħafna. Kienet illi jipprova jagħti palata lill-kaċċaturi mingħajr ma jiġġieled mal-ambjentalisti.  Għalhekk dak li qal Joseph Muscat.

Meta, iżda, beda jidher illi parti mdaqqsa tal-votanti Laburisti kienu fehmu dan il-messaġġ bħal li setgħu jivvutaw kif xtaqu u fil-polls (kemm dawk pubblikati kif ukoll dawk li nżammu kunfidenzjali) beda jidher vantaġġ għal-LE, anke b’voti minn żoni tradizzjonalment laburisti, bdiet tiżdied id-doża tal- involviment tal-Partit Laburista fil-kampanja referendarja.

Il-kandidati Laburisti għall-Kunsilli Lokali (f’ħafna lokalitajiet) huma u jduru d-djar bdew jikkampanjaw favur l-IVA. Bdew ukoll it-telefonati, prinċipalment fl-aħħar ġimgħa.  Anke fid-djar ta’ attivisti tal-Birdlife u tal- ADZ (AD Żgħażagħ) ċemplu jikkampanjaw favur l-IVA. Araw ftit dak li kiteb Steve Borg, ambjentalist rispettat u ex-kandidat tal-Partit Laburista għall-Parlament Ewropew.

Jiena m’inix sorpriż b’dan kollu minħabba li l-Partit Laburista kellu commitment politiku fuq il-materja. Kien baħnan min emmen jew ittama li l-Partit Laburista ser jibqa’ barra mill-kampanja u b’ħalqu magħluq. Il-kritika tiegħi lill-Partit Laburista mhux li ikkampanja favur l-IVA, iżda li ma kellux il-kuraġġ li dan jikkonfermaħ fil-pubbliku. Ipprova jistaħba wara subgħajh.

Ir-referendum u l-partiti politiċi (1)

 

It-tlett partiti politiċi f’Malta ħadu posizzjonijiet kompletament differenti fir-referendum abrogattiv dwar il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa.

Alternattiva Demokratika ġiebet flimkien l-għaqdiet ambjentali kollha u flimkien magħhom organizzat il-ġbir tal-firem li kienu meħtieġa biex ir-referendum ikun jista’ jsir.  Sad-data tad-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali  Alternattiva Demokratika kellha rwol ċentrali fil-kampanja referendarja. Wara dik id-data dan ir-rwol ċentrali kif inhu xieraq għadda għand il-Birdlife. Alternattiva Demokratika baqgħet tinvolvi ruħa fil-preparamenti kollha meħtieġa.

Alternattiva Demokratika kien l-uniku partit politiku f’Malta li ikkampanja favur il-LE. Alternattiva Demokratika hi ukoll l-uniku partit politiku f’Malta li fil-programm elettorali għandu imniżżel ċar u tond li l-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa trid tispiċċa.

L-għażla favur l-ambjent

 

Il-poplu tkellem. Ħa deċiżjoni li jixirqilha kull rispett minn kull min hu demokratiku.

Dan ma jfissirx iżda li għandi xi obbligu li naqbel mad-deċiżjoni. Fil-fatt ma naqbilx mad-deċiżjoni. Kont kontra l-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa u għadni kontra l-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa. U ser nibqa’ naħdem f’kull okkazjoni li jkolli sakemm il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa tispiċċa.

Id-deċiżjoni fir-referendum ta’ tmiem il-ġimgħa, iżda, tfisser ħaġa waħda : li dawk li kellhom id-dritt illi jivvutaw wiżnu dak li ntqal u ħadu deċiżjoni. Kienet deċiżjoni favur il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa. Huma x’inhuma r-raġunijiet li wasslu lill-votant individwali biex jivvota kif ivvota, dawn,  la jnaqqsu u l-anqas ma jżidu mal-mertu tad-deċiżjoni.  Huwa l-mod ċivili kif jittieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet f’pajjiż demokratiku.  Tajjeb li  bħala pajjiż kellna l-kuraġġ li nagħżlu din it-triq. Hija t-triq demokratika li rridu nieħdu meta l-gvernijiet jieħdu deċiżjonijiet serji  li ma jogħġbuniex.

Ivvutaw 74.84% tal-votanti reġistrati. Persentaġġ ferm għoli fid-dinja demokratika, iktar u iktar fuq issue li mhiex a “bread and butter issue”.  Dawk li ma ivvutawx kellhom kull dritt li ma jivvutawx.  Probabbilment li fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom għamlu hekk għax il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa għalihom m’għandha l-ebda importanza jew sinifikat u ma japprezzawx is-sinifikat li din għandha fil-ħajja ta’ ħaddieħor. Huwa ġudizzju tagħhom li ukoll għandu jkun rispettat, anke jekk ma naqbilx miegħu.

Dawk li vvutaw favur il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa m’humiex kollha kaċċaturi. Anzi.  Ftit biss minnhom huma. L-oħrajn ivvutaw favur il-kaċċa għal xi raġuni oħra.

Hemm min ivvota favur il-kaċċa minħabba fil-mod kif iddikjaraw li ser jivvutaw Joseph Muscat u Simon Busuttil. Muscat u Busuttil ma ikkampanjawx attivament favur il-kaċċa. Kullma għamlu kien “biss” li iddikjaraw kif ser jivvutaw. Muscat żied xi ftit kummenti oħra. Nafu iżda li f’xi każijiet kien hemm attivisti  politiċi li ikkampanjaw bieb bieb jew ċemplu u ħeġġew lill-votanti biex jivvutaw bħal Joseph u Simon. Kien hemm min għaqqad flimkien il-kampanja għal Kunsilli Lokali ma kampanja favur l-IVA. Dawn kollha kellhom kull dritt li jagħmlu hekk. Li m’għandhomx dritt hu li dan il-fatt jaħbuħ. Għax kulħadd għandu l-obbligu li jerfa’ r-responsabbilta ta’ dak li jagħmel.

Ma tistax l-ewwel tiddikjara li ser tħalli lil kulħadd liberu kif jivvota u imbagħad tibgħat messaġġi kontinwi dwar kif fil-fatt għandhom jivvutaw.

Imma b’kuntrast ma dan kollu, b’mod pożittiv irid jingħad illi 49.56% ta’ dawk li ivvutaw xeħtu vot kontra l-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa u għażlu li jivvutaw LE. Vot li jikkuntrasta ma kif qalu li ser jivvutaw Simon Busuttil u Joseph Muscat.  Għażlu li jiddeċiedu b’moħħhom u mhux li jimxu kif indikalhom jew ipprova jħajjarhom ħaddieħor.  Dawn taw messaġġ qawwi kemm lil Joseph Muscat kif ukoll lil Simon Busuttil li għal nofs il-votanti l-ambjent għandu importanza kbir.

Għaliex rebaħ l-IVA?  Qatt ma jkun hemm raġuni waħda. Hemm fil-fatt diversi. Kull waħda minn dawn ir-raġunijiet tikkontribwixxi ftit biex vot jitbegħed lejn għażla differenti. Miġbura flimkien imbagħad jissarfu f’telfa. Għax t-telfa b’2220 vot, avolja hi telfa minima, ma tistax tissejjaħ bl-ebda isem ieħor.

Imma irridu nirrikonoxxu ukoll li għall-ewwel darba kważi nofs il-poplu Malti ivvota favur kawża ambjentali. Għal numru żgħir minnhom, dan m’hu xejn ġdid. Għal bosta oħrajn din kienet l-ewwel darba. Ikun tajjeb li din l-esperjenza li iktar votanti jivvutaw favur l-ambjent isseħħ iktar spiss. Kieku, pajjiżna jkun ferm aħjar.

Ivvotajt LE ? Stedina biex taħseb ftit ieħor

 

Ir-referendum intilef b’2,220 vot.

124,214 votant ivvutaw favur il-ħarsien tal-għasafar, favur l-ambjent.

Jekk trid tivvota favur l-ambjent m’għandekx għalfejn toqgħod tistenna referendum. Għandek ukoll l-obbligu li tagħmel dan fl-elezzjonijiet l-oħra: dawk ġenerali u dawk lokali. Jekk trid tkun konsistenti anke f’dawk l-elezzjonijiet għandek tikkunsidra li tagħti l-appoġġ bil-vot tiegħek lil dawk il-partiti f’Malta li għandhom politika li tħares l-ambjent. Partit politiku wieħed hemm: Alternattiva Demokratika.

Joseph Muscat u Simon Busuttil qalu li ivvutaw IVA. Jekk inti ivvutajt LE,  għaldaqstant, ma tistax tkun konsistenti  jekk wara d-dikjarazzjonijiet tagħhom tibqa’ tappoġġa lill-partit tagħhom.

L-ambjent niddefenduh dejjem mhux fir-referendum biss.

Inkella il-vot tal-LE il-bieraħ kien biss biex isserraħ il-kuxjenza.

Taking back control

 

Throughout this Sunday morning the Electoral Commission will supervise the counting of the votes cast  in yesterday’s  spring hunting abrogative referendum. The first reliable projections of the result should be available at around  10.00am with a final result early in the afternoon.

Irrespective of the result, this is history in the making as, for the first time ever, Maltese voters will be directly taking a decision on environmental policy. They will decide whether spring hunting in the Maltese islands will be consigned to the history books.

This is the end of a two year journey that began in  April 2013 when the first steps were taken to form a broad-based anti-spring hunting Coalition of  environmental NGOs together with Alternattiva Demokratika-The Green Party in Malta. Initially, Alternattiva Demokratika’s initiative was met with scepticism: there was widespread fear of confronting the parliamentary political parties which had created the current spring hunting mess.

Constructive dialogue with both the Maltese authorities as well as with the EU Commission had failed to yield results, yet when push came to shove there was still considerable reluctance to think outside the box.  This mess could not be cleared by applying the same thinking that led to its creation. The spring hunting mess was created by successive governments that were held to ransom by the hunting lobby. There was only one solution: government was the problem so it could never be part of the solution – civil society had to take back control of the decision-making process to have order restored.

This was going to be a mammoth task. The fact that the abrogative referendum tool had never been used since its introduction in 1998 understandably added to the reluctance.

As late as 18 June 2013, some environmental NGOs were still hoping that the Maltese Government, or the EU Commission itself, would act in a reasonable manner and stop spring hunting.  In fact, reports in the press at that time were speculating on then EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik initiating an inquiry into spring hunting in Malta.

Early in the day, few people were conscious of the empowerment potential of the abrogative referendum. Almost none of the eNGOs was aware that the abrogative referendum process is independent  of government or Parliament.  Some eNGOs  supported the initiative almost immediately but it was an uphill struggle to convince others, taking weeks and a great deal of patience until practically all eNGOs were on board.

The collection of signatures to initiate the process for calling this abrogative referendum was launched on 10 August 2013 at Il-Buskett. Initially the uptake was very slow, as voters took some time to understand that this was no ordinary petition.

Then, on 23 and 24 October 2013, one of the worst massacres of wild birds in Malta took place. It is best described in a Birdlife Press release which stated  as follows :

“Despite the presence of six BirdLife Malta teams and as many ALE units in the Buskett area this morning at least one Booted Eagle, Ajkla tal-Kalzetti, was shot down inside Buskett Gardens as it left its roost this morning. Several others, including Short-toed and Booted Eagles, were shot at and many more were seen carrying injuries after last night’s shooting spree by hunters in Dingli, Buskett, Girgenti, Siġġiewi and Zebbuġ.

This morning’s second confirmed victim was a Short-toed Eagle, Ajkla Bajda, shot down in Gozo.

The shootings follow what can only be described as a massacre yesterday evening, after more than 50 eagles were seen by birdwatchers counting passing migrating birds in their regular watch-point above the wooded valley of Buskett. At least 10 eagles are known to have been shot down and many more targeted by dozens of hunters in locations around Buskett. Several as yet unconfirmed reports were also received from members of the public who saw eagles and other large birds of prey being shot at and shot down.”

This marked the turning point in signature collection as within ten days of the massacre of these eagles the required number of signatures had been received . The verification process was commenced immediately and the petition was finalised for submission to the Electoral Commission.

By July 2014, the Electoral Commission had concluded its vetting of the signatures submitted and six months later, in January this year, the Constitutional Court threw out the hunters’ objections.

For the past three months we have been actively campaigning to drive the message home: spring is the time when birds are on the way to their breeding grounds. They need to be protected. This message has been conveyed through the different spokesman and women ambassadors who, together with hundreds of volunteers, have done wonders to ensure that practically every voter is aware the he or she has the power to take a decision in order to clean up the mess which Parliament and the government have created over the years.

Today we will know what the decision is.  Saving any last minute surprises, it is clear that after today’s result Maltese civil society will cherish its newly discovered empowerment. Tomorrow, Monday, will not be just the start of a new week.  Hopefully, it be the start of a new era of ever-vigilant NGOs, now armed with the knowledge that they can hold government to account for inadequate legislation whenever they consider that this is necessary.

The abrogative referendum is the tool through which civil society can bring government to order. Today’s result will just confirm whether it can make use of it.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 11 April 2015