Ask yourself a question. After six months of its existence, is this how you expected the National Assembly to be? Or, perhaps more importantly, how you hoped it would be? The answer is probably no. Indeed, outside a few charmed circles still bubbling along on their own rhetoric, there is a palpable disappointment across Wales.

What our new Assembly has revealed, above all else, is the political weakness of Labour in Wales - a weakness that was exposed more quickly than expected by Ron Davies' resignation as Secretary of State and the events which followed. It is of particular concern that the party is failing to learn the lessons of the Assembly elections and to change direction accordingly.

Labour's poor showing sparked a vigorous debate within the party, which included a highly critical report on the conduct of the election by Welsh Labour MPs. A debrief team was appointed by labour's Welsh executive to conduct a consultation and prepare a report. The viewpoint of Welsh Labour Action (WLA) was presented in a report, co-authored by myself and Ed George, which both analysed the election results and discussed the explanations being offered by Labour politicians.

The election statistics speak eloquently of Labour's setback. The Labour vote more than halved compared to the 1997 general election result while Plaid Cymru's votes nearly doubled. The highest swings from Labour to Plaid were all in the south Wales valley seats which were considered Labour's heartland. The safest Assembly seat is held by Dafydd Wigley in Caernarfon and Labour's safest seat is held by Rhodri Morgan in Cardiff West.

But contrary to the popular expression, the facts are not being allowed to speak for themselves. Instead, they are being shrouded in myths woven to suit their makers. Paul Flynn, MP for Newport West, wryly remarked in his typically individualistic account: 'The only thing that is certain in the Welsh Labour Party is the future, the past is constantly changing' (Dragons Lead by Poodles: The Inside Story of a New Labour Stitch-up, Politico's, 1999).

Peter Hain, MP for Neath and Alun Michael's campaign manager was quick to offer his interpretation of events. He blamed the leadership contests and 'an impression of control freakery' for Labour's poor showing. According to Hain, the leadership contests showed a divided and inward-looking party which was unattractive to voters. This suggests that it would have been better to avoid the contests altogether. Our WLA report argues that the problems arose because of the undemocratic way in which the contests were conducted. This was particularly true of the second contest and its outcome.

No one can doubt that Labour exhibited an excess of 'control freakery' prior to the elections: from the leadership contests themselves to the selection procedures for Assembly candidates, the ranking of Euro-election candidates, and the selection of the Assembly top-up lists. What has not been sufficiently discussed is why such levels of control were necessary. In our view, they were necessary because the membership of the Labour Party could not he relied upon to choose the 'correct' leader or the 'correct' candidates.

It is also becoming clear that over-zealous control was not simply a one-off problem associated with the elections but is a major feature of Labour's approach to running a minority administration. Kevin Morgan of Cardiff University, co-author of a forthcoming book on the Assembly, has commented: 'The book will describe Alun Michael's style as anally retentive, by which we mean he is rather obsessed with control and tends to hold things to himself. If he doesn't change, the consequences for Welsh devolution could be dire' (Wales on Sunday, 31 October 1999). This goes hand-in-hand with a style of Prozac politics, which simply wants us to feel better without talking about the real issues.

Peter Hain also claimed that Labour performed poorly because it failed to get its message across. In Hain's view Labour is implementing a radical socialist programme but has not convinced working-class voters that this is the case. Hence, the problem lies not with the policies but with their presentation. Our report takes the contrary view - that the problem lies precisely with the policies - both at Westminster and in Wales. Labour's Assembly manifesto was, to put it mildly, strong on graphics and weak on politics.

Labour's problems can be traced back over many years. They stem from a failure to conduct an open debate within the party on the Assembly proposals and to politically defeat those who opposed devolution. The failure to establish a Constitutional Convention, similar to that in Scotland, meant that the debate was not joined with the other political parties or representatives of civic society in Wales. These failures have two direct consequences. They mean that there are too many people, at all levels of the Labour Party in Wales, whose commitment to devolution is highly questionable. They also mean that the debates which were conducted in Scotland before the establishment of their Parliament now have to be conducted in Wales after the establishment of our Assembly.

How the Labour Party responds to this challenge is very important: it can welcome the opportunity created by the Assembly for debate and constructive criticism, or it can attempt to manage and close down debate as it has done in the past.

The report on the Assembly election results presented to Labour's Welsh Executive by the debrief team is certainly a step forward. It acknowledges the divisions caused by the selection procedures for candidates and the second leadership contest. The report also proposes that the constituency section of the Welsh Executive should be expanded and directly elected by Labour Party members, which is similar to the reform advocated by the CYFLE group within the party.

Alun Michael's recent speech to the Institute of Welsh Politics has reopened the debate on the nature of devolution. While arguing in favour of dynamic devolution, Michael also chose to emphasise Paul Murphy's phrase that the current form of devolution is 'the settled will of the Welsh people'. This phrase echoes that used in Scotland but is patently not the case in Wales. Elsewhere in his speech Alun Michael concedes that many people 'remain to be convinced' of the merits of devolution.

Recognising that devolution is 'a process rather than an event' is important. But processes do nothing, they do not decide anything, or change anything. It is people who make processes happen. Without the political will to develop further, the Assembly will remain stunted in its present form, which is dangerously close to a 'democratic' version of the old Welsh Office. Our Assembly is too important, too valuable a gain for the people of Wales, for that to be allowed to happen.