THE general election is still over a month from being called and already the debate is beginning in Fianna Fáil about what should happen after the inevitable poll drubbing.

In some ways, it is inevitable that this will happen. Nobody in the party is under any illusion about their prospects in the general election. The only doubt is whether the party can climb to 25% or whether it will be down to the mid-teens.

The difference, in terms of Fianna Fáil's future, is massive. If it's the former, then the party will win 50-plus seats – a big seat loss from the 78 it won in 2007 but still a decent critical mass from which to rebuild from the opposition benches.

If it's the latter, then the traditional party of government could be left with less than 25 seats and out of power for 10 years or longer.

The stakes are far higher than they were four years ago. The worst case scenario then seemed to be a narrow defeat and a return to the opposition benches with a minimum of 70 seats – how Fianna Fáil TDs must wish that was what had transpired.

It's no wonder the collective nerves are jangling. But the problem for Fianna Fáil is that this is when serious mistakes can be made. The tendency for parties to contrive to make a bad situation worse is one of the most fascinating features of politics across the world.

Take Britain, for example, and the almost mirror-image paths taken by both Labour and the Conservatives after their respective election defeats of 1979 and 1997.

After 1979, Labour moved sharply to the left, made a succession of bad leadership selections, and in the process made itself unelectable for 18 years. After their 1997 defeat, the Tories moved sharply to the right, made a succession of bad leadership selections, and in the process made themselves unelectable for three elections in a row.

The largely centrist nature of Irish politics means there is no precedent for wild ideological swings among parties here. But there are plenty of examples of bad decision-making under pressure.

The disastrous attempts by Fine Gael to salvage something from the 2002 general election campaign – which included daft policy measures such as compensating taxi drivers and Eircom shareholders – is a case in point.

But it's Fine Gael's reaction to its 1987 general election hammering that Fianna Fáil TDs should study most if they want to avoid doing potentially irreparable damage to their party.

Those in Fianna Fáil who are advocating skipping a generation when deciding on its next leader might do well to remember that is exactly what Fine Gael did when Garret FitzGerald resigned after his party lost 20 seats in the February election of that year.

With the benefit of hindsight, everybody agreed that Fine Gael should have gone for an interim leader in Peter Barry, whose calm presence would have helped steady the ship and maintain unity. But wiser counsel did not prevail and the young Turks, Alan Dukes and John Bruton, were seen as the best option for the party. Twenty-four years on, Fine Gael has still to win a general election.

In comparison to the Ógra generation of Fianna Fáil – as the likes of Dara Calleary, Thomas Byrne, Michael McGrath, Niall Collins and Darragh O'Brien are now being described – Dukes and Bruton had a wealth of experience. Bruton had been a TD since 1969, and while Dukes was only elected in 1981, both men had been minister for finance, as well as holding other cabinet positions.

Calleary, Byrne, McGrath, Collins and co are the future of Fianna Fáil. But talented and all as they undoubtedly are, none of them is even close to being ready to being considered leadership material. Most of them were only elected in 2007 and only a minority has junior ministerial experience.

Picking Brian Cowen's successor from the new generation of Fianna Fáil would be akin to the Tories' decision in 1997 to choose the 36-year-old William Hague rather than the hugely experienced Ken Clarke. Hague was (and is) a talented politician, but he was nowhere near ready to become leader. The Tories were trying to go with the bold choice to wrestle the initiative back from Tony Blair's New Labour but it backfired badly.

There is certainly some merit to the argument that if the next leader of Fianna Fáil is chosen from the current cabinet, he or she will be tainted because of the mess the government made of the economy.

The three obvious candidates from the ministerial ranks are Micheál Martin, Brian Lenihan and Mary Hanafin. Neither Martin nor Hanafin was minister for finance, but they have been at cabinet since 1997 and 2004 respectively. Lenihan only became a minister in 2007, after the real damage was done. Although he had a near impossible job over the past couple of years, the view is that he has been damaged by the fall-out from the EU/IMF intervention.

But while their track records are open to attack, they are all consummate politicians and still represent, by far, the best options to lead the party through its rebuilding phase. You know exactly what you're getting with all three (not least, their media skills) whereas it would be an enormous gamble to opt for an unknown quantity from the Ógra generation.

Comparisons with Tony Blair and David Cameron, neither of whom had cabinet experience before becoming prime ministers, miss the point. Both of those men were their respective parties' fourth leader since losing power and those that had served at a high level had moved on. There was no choice but to go with the next generation.

Perhaps the most savvy comment on the subject came from Michael Finneran, who last week predicted that Brian Cowen would lead the party not just into the general election, but into the election after that. That won't happen, of course, as Finneran no doubt knows, but his instinct of moving to rein-in speculation about succession before the general election has even been contested was the right one.

For Fianna Fáil's sake, similarly wise counsel needs to prevail in the months ahead. History suggests we shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.

scoleman@tribune.ie