It looked like a shot in the foot. The Times headline was unequivocal – “Busuttil: Politicians should keep away from spring hunting controversy”. I was lost for words. Here was the leader of Malta’s opposition, still struggling in the trust ratings at the polls, coming up with a declaration that stank incredibly of fence-sitting. Could it be possible that after the disastrous management of the Civil Union issue the PN was once again falling far short in the battle of public perception?
I was mistakenly (as it turned out) provoked to putting together another Banana Republic poster that decried the fence-sitting qualities of the declaration. A facebook reader pointed out that there was much more to be read than the headline. Mea culpa, it seems, but only to a point. In fact after reading the Times article in full I began to understand where Busuttil was coming from. It all hinged on the fact that Busuttil was placing importance on the referendum – “the decision rested on the will of the people in a referendum”. What Busuttil seems to be saying (as confirmed further on in the report) is that for this particular decision “political parties have to bow their head to the will of the people”.
Could that be it? Is the PN leader telling anybody who listens that the PN will not stand in the way of a popular decision? This was reinforced by Busuttil’s reference to the party’s position – that of having a limited and controlled season. So we do know that officially the PN is not against spring hunting as such – if anything it has a position that is in favour of limited and controlled hunting in spring. What we are also being told by Busuttil is that notwithstanding this position, his party (and the politicians) should keep away from the controversy and let the referendum run its course. Presumably so the PN will not be campaigning for or against a particular position but has committed to respect the final decision in the referendum.
Is that really fence-sitting? Not really no. It falls much, much shorter than the ‘liberal’ anti-hunting sentiment that has been whipped up over the last year. The PN has definitely decided not to take up the baton of the anti-spring hunting movement and form some sort of coalition for the purposes of the referendum. Insofar as that is concerned it is a form of fence-sitting. On the other hand, it is also not actively gathering hunters’ votes in Cyrus Engerer fashion or sending out equivocal statements that worryingly threaten the very possibility of the referendum. A positive passiveness if you will.
What has happened though is that the gist of the Times headline spread far quicker than the convoluted institutional message that Simon wanted to send out. It is far easier to jump to the conclusion that the PN is fence-sitting (I for one am guilty of doing so) than to see that there is a clear commitment from one of the two parties in parliament to respect the outcome of the referendum and give full power to a useful tool of political representation.
AD’s criticism of the PN position is not entirely correct in this respect but it is an inevitable result of a grave mishandling of communication from Busuttil’s PR team. The PN is not neutral – it has a position on spring hunting but it is choosing not to lead with it – promising to honour the outcome of the referendum instead. True, if like me you are dead set against spring hunting you would have preferred if at least one of the two political behemoths puts its full force behind getting a referendum result in favour of the abolition of spring hunting.
Whether it is for a calculated purpose or out of a purist interpretation of the institution of public referenda Busuttil has other ideas. The way his speech was reported results in a mini-disaster at PR and spin level. The leftovers at Dar Centrali in Pietà are proving rather inept at understanding the basics of communicating to the extent that even a bungling Labour party in government that rides roughshod over basic constitutional concepts manages to survive ahead at the trust polls.
As the MEP elections approach the PN remains an incoherent machine that is unable to clearly define itself and as a consequence unable to sell a clear defined message to the electorate. They should have learnt by now that voting PN by default is for many not an option – no matter how evident the ugly warts of the party in government have become.
As thing stand, even if you do “get Simon” the safest and clearest message on spring hunting comes from the candidates in green. It has always been and now it is louder and clearer than ever. It is not only about spring hunting but also about taking clear unequivocal positions on issues that are not only (as some mistakenly seem to suggest) restricted to national policy but that are also based on an open European vision.
.
