Tun Dr Mahathir (TDM) lost his bid to be a delegate for the Umno Kubang Pasu division because in a fight between him and the incumbent leader, Umno members will ally with the latter in whose hands the power to advance political careers and distribute largesse and the spoils of patronage is held.

Neither had TDM inculcated amongst his fellow party members the values of loyalty above personal interest during his tenure. (It will be recollected TDM exploited used his position of incumbency to turn Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's loyalists against him in the 11th hour of the contest for Umno's presidency).

Those like TDM who, when they were in power, had benefitted from exploiting the power of incumbency to command obedience should not now complain that the same has been effectively mobilised against him when he openly challenges the incumbent.

His party members may be also wondering why someone like an ex-president who had benefitted from the party whilst in power would now want to engage in public bickering with the very own successor anointed by him, in the process, washing the party's dirty linen in public thereby undermining, by exposing in the public domain, the feudal practices of patronage upon which existing and future party members depend on as livelihood.

Besides, the thrust of TDM's dissatisfaction is his perception of the deconstruction of his legacy as evinced by the abortion of the crooked bridge (TDM was widely reported to have said on Aug 12 that he would stop criticising the government if it agreed to build the bridge). He is not interested in stopping scandals, unraveling the truth for their own sake - he is only interested in his legacy and unhappy that it is not preserved by the present administration the way he wants it.

For this reason many amongst ordinary Malaysians, who are not party members, are also wondering whether his campaign against the present leadership deserve their support, and his defeat in Kubang Pasu, their sympathy, being sullied as it were by unmeritorious considerations of personal legacy rather than lofty imperatives of national interest.

What's next after this defeat in the hands of his own constituency? Kubang Pasu is not Waterloo. He might have lost a battle but not the war.

TDM has two advantages in continuing the fight in the media and other forums. His first advantage is that by virtue of his special stature as ex-premier, the government is unlikely to take action against him. He, on the other hand, has evinced no compunction to reciprocate restraint, and if he keeps on criticising, it is only a matter of time that his barbs and criticisms will find target.

His second advantage is the nature and force of his character. TDM's strength is linked to the quality of excess. He evinces an indomitable will and energy level (little diminished by age) to fight, prevail and win no matter that existing standards or decorum, whether relating to tradition or norms, may be shattered in the process.

TDM also has a good grasp of the anxieties, hopes, strengths and weakness of the party members he directly led for 22 years and therefore will be in position to know what other forces, amongst them, he may next mobilise and galvanise in the continuance of his fight for his 'legacy'.

For a man who had not lost a single political fight in the last 22 years when he was at helm, it is improbable that he would treat Kubang Pasu as his last requiem. His defeat in his home state of Kedah will only serve to spur him on to fight further.