It is a week since the result of the election became known. It is still in the very recent past, but a few days' distance ensures that the raw emotions - those that do not allow you to think and reflect - have subsided. Such emotions are human and the fact that, after last Sunday's result, they were so strong and intense is a healthy sign that we care about the future of our country and of our children.

One, should not, however, act on those emotions. Decisions taken like that are often rushed and misjudged, so here are my first considerations - which I hope are not too coloured by the experience.

Emotions and numbers

Once again, the people have spoken and while the result is crystal clear in terms of numbers, it might be less so when it comes to the clarity of the message.

It is true that election post-mortems tend to over-emphasise the mistakes of the losers and the strengths of the winners, but I believe the Nationalist Party had quite a good campaign in the circumstances. Joseph Muscat was, for most of the time, on the defensive even though he had the obvious advantage - which he used to the full - of deciding on the election date as early and unexpectedly as he could.

Many of the PN supporters responded to the party's campaign with enthusiasm - an enthusiasm which, I dare say, was stronger than it was for the 2008 election and definitely much stronger than that of 2013. But the strength of that emotion was not reflected in terms of numbers.

Voting intentions, undecided voters and party switching

The Nationalist Party hoped that the vibe on the ground would carry the day against what was continuously being predicted by different surveys. The party's optimism was based on the fact that the surveys were showing that a large chunk of voters were still undecided. So it hoped that the undecided were in fact Nationalist supporters and maybe even disgruntled Labour voters who were afraid to declare their intentions to vote Forza Nazzjonali. But one wonders if the undecided were either bargaining for Labour to solve their personal problem, or mulling over whether to vote for Labour in spite of it being such a corrupt government, or waiting.

There is no doubt that the favours for votes had a considerable impact on the actual result, but this does not mean that all those voting for Labour necessarily condoned the lack of good governance. The surveys have not only predicted a victory for the Labour party but also exposed a concern held by the majority about corruption. So a vote for Labour by these people means that when they considered the pros and cons, they nevertheless believed, rightly or wrongly, that Labour was still the viable solution for the country. The PN's over-emphasis on the issue of corruption, sidelining other important issues, might have been strategically a case of overkill.

In the end, Joseph Muscat's Labour won the election with a majority equivalent to that of 2013. What the PN gained from Labour - mainly through the good governance issue - has been compensated by an equivalent shift. The crude reality is that, from Opposition, the PN lost voters who, in spite of all the difficulties, were still voting for it until 2013.

Cardinal mistakes and masters of illusions

John Cruddas, a British Labour MP and former party head of policy review - and no ardent supporter of Tony Blair - led an independent inquiry into the reasons why Labour lost the last election. He argued that Labour should stop treating Blair as a pariah and should instead rehabilitate and re-own him because, in the absence of this, "the party cannot own its own recent political history". In not so doing, it will be rejecting its own legacy and undermining its own credibility.

In the last four years, the Nationalist Party has seemed to want too clean a break with its last stint in government. Contrary to Joseph Muscat, who kept referring to Mintoff's violent era as the 'Golden Years', the Nationalist Party was not only reluctant, rightly so, to defend any mistakes of the past but it was equally reluctant to strongly defend its past achievements and legacy on which the Labour government built and then went ahead to claim as its own. In the end, it wasn't just that legacy that we were losing. We were losing voters who had voted Nationalist in 2013 precisely because of that legacy.

In this sense we have played into Labour's hands. We let it destroy our past legacy and future credibility in the economy, education, energy and so many other policy areas by not owning it but rejecting it ourselves for the sake of a fresh image.

Muscat has successfully sold the story that the economy was not doing too well in 2013 and that it wasn't doing too well because of some sort of mismanagement by the previous government. This is in spite of our economy doing well and being amongst the best performing European economies in times of international crisis. The Nationalist Party ended up taking the flack for tough decisions leading to necessary reforms but not equally taking credit for the fruit of those reforms. As such, it stopped being considered as the natural party for economic performance and stopped being the natural party of government.

The dangers of a perpetual revolution

Whilst change is needed, change for change's sake is simply dangerous. The last thing the Nationalist Party needs is another political bloodbath. It has already lost some very valid people in the process which - it could be argued - is only natural. And it is not only MPs I am talking about. This loss of talent has also had an impact on the much-needed political experience and institutional knowledge. Politics is not only about faces but more so about policies, strategy and tactics.

As a friend of mine recently reminded me, Joseph Muscat's first move after being elected was to invite all those who could contribute to join his ranks -irrespective of age or experience. Muscat himself, albeit young, was already experienced and carrying baggage. Who can forget the instance he lent his face to the EU membership No campaign and Alfred Sant's unreasonable stands on issues such as VAT. But his decades of experience as a political operator allowed him to manage to turn disadvantage in his favour and present himself as the victim.

So it is dangerous to be tempted to do exactly the opposite of what Muscat did and call for another clean sweep. My middle-aged friend argues that it is dangerous to consider those of the Fenech Adami era as too old to contribute anything of value, the Gonzi crop as the undesirable who dared win an extra election out of the normal cycle and Busuttil's bunch of new faces as the failures that brought upon the Nationalist Party's its largest defeat ever in spite of carrying no baggage that comes with government responsibility. This will just be a depletion of talent from the party ranks when what we need is totally the opposite. It will be a recipe for disaster and we will once again be playing into Labour's hands.

What is to be done?

I will not dare minimise the size of this blow but there is no reason for being disheartened. Whilst upholding our democratic convictions, we need to realise that a popularity contest is not necessarily the most foolproof way of proving the truth. I have noted that, this time around, the PN has moved from the mantra of the '35,000 majority can't be wrong on anything' to 'eppur si muove' ('and yet it moves') at least on issues of good governance. It makes no sense for legacies to be dismantled by the same people who built them.

Once again, it is time to regroup, rethink and refresh. Without abandoning our core identity and basic values, a process of soul-searching and sociological understanding is much needed at this moment.

We definitely need to be in synch with the people - even by translating our message which, most of the time, seemed to be addressed more to the higher middle and professional classes rather than other segments such as the working and business class, where attitudes and financial and social conditions vary. As already argued, by over-emphasising the corruption issue we might have been seen as emphasising a post-materialist value over economic security, even if our electoral programme proves otherwise.

We also need to open our doors more to anybody sufficiently valid and willing to contribute to our cause. The role of party committees and branches, together with the parliamentary group, has to be central once again.

To be in sync with the people, we need to lead and inspire confidence. I am sure the Party is able to rise to the occasion. The important thing now is to take some time for reflection before the next moves are made.