The results of the June 3 elections seem to have surprised many. Why this happened is a mystery to me. The polls had been consistent throughout the previous four years – a clear distance in ‘trust’ between the two main party leaders of about seven to 10 per cent in favour of Joseph Muscat as against Simon Busuttil.

True, the balance between the parties was not so clear-cut and subject to marginal errors (and given the large proportion of undecided votes) the Nationalists were hopeful to make a breakthrough at the very end of the electoral campaign.

However, Maltese politics have a tendency to be dominated by the leaders of the parties. Looking back at historical precedents, one can find ample examples: Panzavecchjani, Stricklandjani, Mizzjani, Boffisti, Mintoffjani and others. Such is the aura that surrounds the leader (especially a strong character) that often the party and leader become indivisible in the public mind.

The Nationalist strategists ignored this phenomenon at their party’s risk. It was sheer folly on their part, because their shots were, as a result, aimed in a void. The determining factor was, indeed, the leader.

In the case of Labour, Muscat was what Eddie Fenech Adami was to the PN in his time. The personal polls of the leaders proved to be the proper gauge of how public opinion was moving up to election day.

It was most admirable on the part of Busuttil to take on his shoulders the full responsibility for the extraordinary defeat suffered by the PN for the second consecutive time. However, he need not have taken its full impact upon himself, as the result came about because of a combination of factors and circumstances.

The year 2013 had already showed the dire state of the PN. By the end of four hectic years, Busuttil could boast that he kept the party united, infused new blood into its organisation, modernised its structures, turned around its financial situation and lastly (and more importantly), made it again a fighting force to be reckoned with.

So what really went wrong?

Muscat was, without a doubt, a main factor. He is charismatic, eloquent, persuasive and has proved himself to be a first-rate political tactician. This does not mean that he did not make mistakes. The Panama affair, for example, was dealt with in the most horrendous and amateurish manner – a total mess that still has its repercussions on the political horizon.

The second reason was the way the Nationalist leadership reacted to many of the most important issues during the Labour government’s tenure from 2013-2017. There was no coordinated strategy on the part of the PN leadership.

Often the party’s spokesmen reacted within minutes of the problem cropping up, giving the impression that it was a gut-feeling reply rather than a well-thought-out assessment. More than once, the leadership had to retract its first responses.

Examples abound, especially in matters of social and civil import, like LGBTIQ issues. The overall lasting impression was of a party moving aimlessly about, intent only on scoring immediate (but not long-lasting) points over the government.

The party’s press conferences cried wolf all the time in an atmosphere of undoubted national well-being.

In the end, no one took real notice.

What happens now? The first step is for the PN to find the right leader. More than anything, this needs to be someone in the mould of Sir Ugo Mifsud, Nerik Mizzi, George Borg Olivier and Eddie Fenech Adami. A leader familiar with the many nuances of public opinion – feet on the ground, with ears and eyes well attuned to the many changes around that really matter to ordinary people.

The PN has also to find its moral compass, which it lost in the last decade, especially since our entry into the EU.

It no longer has a viable rallying cry. Trying to imitate and follow the opposing political party could be counter-productive.

Religio et patria might not be fashionable these days, but that famous motto has stood the changing fortunes of the party since its inception. Why disregard it now?

It is a shame, for example, that with regards to same-sex marriages, the party declared its support for the government initiative when the leadership knew well enough it was putting many of its MPs in a most unhappy situation.

A moral and religious issue of the highest order treated with scandalous inconsideration and disdain by the leadership.

Muscat is now confident that he can ride roughshod over the protests of those genuinely distressed by some of the decisions of the government.

This is a matter of great concern. I can see the red-light already being switched on as regards euthanasia, the legalisation of marijuana as a recreational drug and, possibly, abortion. The queue of pending controversies may even grow longer, unless the PN presents a real, viable opposition.