Leading on

that turned out to be, even if its meaning is not really over. One outcome was definite. The elected government could go ahead and sign Malta's treaty of accession to the European Union. The reinstated prime minister duly did so on Wednesday.

That was only the end of the beginning. Now it remains to be seen what we Maltese will make out of the fact that, barring the European continent sinking into the mysterious deep earth underneath it, we shall be citizens of the Union in 13 months' time.

It also remains to be seen whether that beginning has indeed ended. In one fundamental sense, it should have. A democratic majority of the Maltese electorate was clear enough in its expression: 51.79% of those who cast a valid vote in the general election of April 12 elected a Nationalist government. Not - quite a few analysts, observers, and voters too believe - because they were delirious about the prospect of another five years of Nationalist rule.

An unquantifiable but probably significant element in that majority would have preferred a fresh team to administer Malta, if that could have included confirmation that Malta would become an EU member at the next enlargement, on May 1, 2004. That they did not have such an opportunity, that they were not placed in a position to have that choice before them - yes to membership, no to another Nationalist government this time round - does not vitiate the expressed majority and, consequently, the mandate for membership, even if one ignores the specific result of the March 8 referendum on a Yes or No to the issue.

Many recognise that, even among those who were dead set against opting for membership. Anyone is entitled to stare reality in the eye and, though the people have spoken in the clear majority language of democracy, continue to hold and express an anti-membership position. Nobody, though, can democratically deny the democratic outcome of the general election.

The current leader of the Labour Party, speaking for the whole leadership and with no subsequent distancing on that point by any colleagues, very quickly on Sunday said the only thing one could democratically say. Within two hours of the commencement of the count of the first preferences, a mere hour after both parties had worked out that the ballot boxes had contained an absolute majority against the non-membership alternative, Alfred Sant conceded victory. He did so succinctly, without any attempt at excuses, without remotely questioning the legitimacy of the result.

That he subsequently continued to stick to his view on the EU, in speech and in writing, was neither unexpected nor reprehensible. That some others attributed the outcome to a hostile media, to the electorate not having understood Labour's message, was within the bounds of early bitter reaction. It was not in that regard that the fateful week had ended, but its meaning was not really over.

I gather that there are those, by no means in evidently significant size, but of significant standing nevertheless, who are insisting that the result was, in some queer way, undemocratic and should not be accepted. That, if necessary - meaning if the Labour Party did not act according to the fire they try to stoke in their own belly - they would even be prepared to split the party, though they are not quite at the core of it.

I very much doubt that it will ever come to that. I doubt, even, that a rumour going round - that Dom Mintoff, former leader of the Labour Party, will address its forthcoming post-election general conference to hold forth about what he sees as the dire need to defend neutrality - will translate into reality. Despite voting against the Labour government in 1998, he remains an icon, albeit not completely restored upon his pedestal despite the strenuous pre-election attempts at a rapprochement.

That did not materialise, beyond more than mutually opportunistic references, certainly not even in just a Freedom Day joint-declaration against war, as some were suggesting.

But I doubt that he is entitled to attend the general conference, other than as a guest, and certainly not to address it, unless the general conference agrees to a suspension of the rules.

However that particular sub-plot turns out, it is one sign that the week that was is not quite over yet.

In other Labour terms it certainly is not over in its most significant aspect - the fact that the MLP general conference now has to elect its leader and deputy leaders for the period ahead of it. It is not that the leadership in office at a general election has to go, because the party was defeated.

It is, far more simply and correctly, that the party statute requires a leadership contest in such circumstances, though the whole or anyone from the sitting leadership is free to seek re-election. The post-election conferences of 1992 and 1998 are recent examples.

Such a general conference will take place now. It is not a question of the sitting leadership resigning. Any of its members might say, as Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici did in 1992 and Alfred Sant has announced this time round, that he will not contest again for the leadership. That is a personal choice. Or one might seek re-election, as Mr Mintoff did when the MLP lost the 1962 and 1966 elections in context of the politico-religious dispute, and also Dr Sant when Labour was defeated in 1998.

Resignations or automatically not contesting do not come into it. Any informed observer will know that background.

What those on the outside do not and cannot know is what exactly is going on. No doubt about it, though, a lot is taking place. That includes, from what I hear, the old tactic of assassinating by innuendo one or two potential candidates for a position in the new leadership. Political parties are human institutions.

The Nationalist Party has its cloak-and-dagger episodes, the most famous of which was the way the late Dr George Borg Olivier had his party's helm wrenched from his hands after his second successive defeat by Mr Mintoff in 1976.

The Labour Party has its own penchant for scurrilous whispers and anonymous poison letters. One cannot blame those who dread being, perhaps yet again, the target of those who will stoop to any depth to reach their ends, even if they are just to keep out someone they do not quite like. The greatest blow is the treacherous one of the enemy within. I am sure a few current members of the Nationalist Party know that as well.

The dastardly tactic, I am told, was used in that part of the spectrum on the eve of this general election.

For all that, and whatever the positioning, manoeuvres, spins and what-else-not, a genuine selection of a fresh leadership of the Labour Party is likely to take place. Contrary to further rumour, I do not think the contest will include the present leader.

When Dr Sant said, at the beginning of the week, that he did not intend to seek re-election as leader, I do not for one moment suspect he was leaving calculated space for the possibility of being carried on a wave of entreatment to stay on. He is not that sort of person.

How the process will actually unfold remains to be seen. The past week triggered it off. When it is completed, it will be one more beginning. Whoever emerges from it in the top post will have won not a trophy but enormous responsibility to carry the burden of reconstruction. Two successive electoral defeats, whatever one attributes them to, trumpet that rethinking, redefinition and rebuilding is required.

Serious political parties have fundamental principles which cannot ever be for electoral sale. These can never be put up for electoral sale. Principles properly enshrined, however, political parties cannot be characters in a revamped Carry On series. They have to reflect, review and revise when the going is good, and they are winning the toss and the argument. Let alone when a party has lost both, and - this time round for the Labour Party - in circumstances that were confidently expected to be a tide that would lead on to fortune, but resulted in a capsizing instead.

I am sure that the Labour Party, which retains massive electoral support and contains a large pool of able human resources upon which to build for successful re-launching, does not require advice from anyone on how to go about its business at this crucial time. Much less does it require any meddling from those of us who have retired from active politics.

The renewal of its strength will come from within itself in the form of its members and genuine well-wishers.

The week has turned out to be quite something for the Nationalist Party as well. It won not only the right to take Malta into the EU, on the basis of a vote that was several thousand higher than the Yes vote in the March 8 referendum. It won the right and responsibility to administer the Maltese Islands for a further term.

That is a continuation, yet also a beginning from a new benchmark. The road ahead is far from smooth and the Nationalist government could well find that it has once again given too many hostages to fortune, not least by raising very high expectations from the aftermath of their victory, and from accession to the EU.

They say anticipation is better than realisation. Politics is no exception.

Ladies' day

Female candidates of both main parties struck a high note in the general election.

Giovanna Debono, streaking up to an incredible 6,591 level, suggested that she has discovered how to defy the law of gravity. Marie Louise Coleiro, after getting into the House at her first attempt in 1998, this time polled the highest absolute number of votes anyone ever attracted in the constituency centred on Qormi - a remarkable 4,339 tally. Helena Dalli strengthened her position with quiet panache.

Another Gozitan, Justyne Caruana, won a seat at her first effort. Dolores Cristina returned to the House directly this time, and not through a casual election.

Helen D'Amato also performed well, though she has to wait again for the casual election window. Rita Law, who had endured very unfair jibes during her first stint in the House, alas will not be back this time. But, in a fiercely contested district, her share of the votes was more than credible, and not far short of the mark.