Deep down in his heart, Lawrence Gonzi must have thought he was doing the right thing rehabilitating John Dalli.

Only then for Mr Dalli to turn round and launch an attack on Dr Gonzi’s close former aide, Alan Camilleri, his brother, and the present editor of The Sunday Times.

Former President Guido de Marco launched his memoirs last week pinning the 1996 defeat on centralistic decision-making processes installed by Richard Cachia Caruana at Castile and by Austin Gatt within the party.

One could say all this is normal in party politics and in political life.

But deep down one cannot help but look at this from the wrong end of a telescope: with an impending election, and a deep-seated feeling the ruling party is heading for a defeat, what we could be seeing is the end of effective political life of a generation of politicians who were responsible for bringing Malta out of the Labour years into the EU, but who also have to be held responsible for much of what is seen as having gone wrong in today’s Malta, from overdevelopment to lack of benefiting from EU membership.

The two politicians mentioned earlier were, up to some years ago, among the leading lights of the government. They now face different realities: on Mr Dalli’s part the anger at having been ousted as a minister under a cloud now removed (and also possibly resentment at not having emerged as party leader) and, on Prof. De Marco’s part, an attempt to portray his part in the successive governments led by Eddie Fenech Adami in the brightest of colours. Equally, and perhaps cruelly, the actions of the two betray an awareness of power that has moved on and, perhaps unconsciously, awareness that this is the end of a cycle.

One could say not before its time, but that would be, perhaps, cruel. Unless Lawrence Gonzi reinvents a new zeitgeist in time for the election, this could be the end of a cycle, regardless of the doubts about a Labour win and the immediate aftermath, about Labour’s plans to kick start the economy, about the worth of continuation as against change as encapsulated by the Nationalist Party.

The time may have come to give people such as John Dalli and Guido de Marco, but not just them, a worthy and merited release from the cares of public office. It is true that we in Malta do things in a very uncouth and rough manner and that for the losers of an election there is nothing except to sulk in corners or retreat into one’s profession. It is also true that the Nationalists in office and in victory were not magnanimous at all. So they cannot, should not, expect anything better. But if other countries far bigger than us can find ways to honour people who have served the country in office and to benefit from their wide experience, can we still afford to lose people this way?

If the Nationalist Party loses, something it just refuses to acknowledge as a possibility at present, time in Opposition could turn out to be a very productive time indeed.

It would be time for a whole generational overhaul of the party, a calm analysis of what went wrong (Prof. De Marco’s analysis of what went wrong in 1996 is still tainted by a non-calm tendency to point fingers, but other analyses may be made too), as well as a needed appraisal of what the Nationalist Party (even the name itself) stands for.

Deep down, John Dalli’s and Guido de Marco’s “outbursts” show, despite their attempts, that a crevice has opened between the PN as represented by them and the present PN administration. Could it be that they have moved off the centre or that Lawrence Gonzi has taken the party off-centre?

One could argue for ever on the merits and demerits of this or that administration, just as supporters of a football team always disagree on the merits and demerits of successive line-ups of the team, but politics is not a sport: a political party expresses the hopes and plans of citizens for themselves and for the country. It is important for it, and its constituent leaders, to remember that a political party does not stand for itself, not even for the principles it enshrines, for if the citizens want to live by other principles there is simply no way a political party can persuade them.

What, in the end, is all-important is not what a party’s bigwigs think of themselves or of the party but what the ordinary people think of the party, which is what elections are for. If it were up to party leaders, all party leaders, they would all remain in power forever for they all have unfinished business. It is elections that provide the all-important reality check.