What is passed for filing is not meant to be forgotten. It only means that it is no longer urgent. The results last week's local elections are such an instance. People have voted by casting their ballots, and these have been counted. Some are saying that a good number voted with their feet. Does this mean that they put their foot in the ballot?

This is an annual occasion for television entertainment. What I find most tickling is the airing of deeply pondered opinions while not a single result has been declared. The chosen speakers are aware that they have to be cautious, so they speak about the possible outcome and what it may mean. Others delve back into history and say how these local elections came about and who has the glory of having given this democratic choice to the people.

Certainly I remember that. It was the Nationalist Party in government that set up the local councils. It went further and decided that local elections should be contested by political parties. For a few years, the Nationalists were the only party fielding candidates against independents, a majority of whom were close to the Labour Party.

The reasoning behind the Nationalist Party's decision to field political candidates from the very start was to give a political meaning to the whole system, including the results. The Church was also in favour of local elections free from political colours. Its plea also went unheeded. Now we have local elections with the full political machinery behind the candidates, with a few isolated independent candidates. What the last results have shown is that with a general election approaching, independents fared worse than three years ago.

I never doubted that the Nationalist Party wanted to have mid-term political consultations by votes actually being cast to test the ground. After the local elections of 1998, the Nationalist Party was calling on the Labour government to resign because of the results it obtained at the local level. The system has been fashioned according to the Italian pattern. Within a month and a half there will be similar elections in Italy, and there will be the same debate about the political meaning of the local results on a national level.

This background gave me a lot of late night entertainment watching Channel 33 and the political commentators, as the results were coming in. I was given the impression that these are local elections and nothing more should be read into the results. Even the Prime Minister chanted that these were local elections and meant practically nothing.

I know, however, that when he was secretary-general of the Nationalist Party he gave a lot of importance to local elections, candidates, councillors and who would be mayor. If they have no political meaning, then it is high time that local elections should be contested at a purely local level, without party labels.

While in no way detracting from the commitment of all elected councillors and mayors, if there are no party labels, then other potential candidates may be interested in doing voluntary work for their community, but who would never imagine themselves as being the players of a political team. Such people do exist. This idea has not only to be passed for filing. It has to go through the shredder, as the fervour of local elections keeps party machineries well oiled from one general election to the next.

Some interesting cases

Hamrun was a hotly contested locality. One must recall that on the previous occasion the majority there passed from Nationalist to Labour, and this time the Labour majority has been confirmed. There must be some pattern on party lines. The same applies to Floriana. The Nationalist Party barely obtained enough votes for two seats on the council. The final seat was a tie between Labour and the independent candidate, decided in favour of the latter on election rules.

If one were to compare with the 2004 results, when there was a heavier poll, the pattern seems to be substantially the same. The Nationalist commentators stressed that there were abstentions which dealt a heavier blow to the party. But the arithmetic of the results shows that if the drop of 6,000 votes were to be added to the Nationalist Party, and none to the Labour side, it would still be have been a Labour victory.

But is it realistic to consider that abstentions were only on the Nationalist side? It is true that there was a heavier drop in Nationalist votes. If the difference is counted and given as a bonus to the Nationalists, the government party would still be trailing behind.

While the elation of the winners should be muted, the excuses of the losers are mathematically ridiculous.