THE Liberal Democrats face the risk of a civil war as bitter as that that engulfed the Conservatives during the 1990s. The coming leadership contest could be as much about what rival candidates did and said over the weeks before Charles Kennedy’s resignation as they are about debating the future direction of the party.

The signs are already there in the comments by Kennedy loyalists, such as Lembit Opik, and in the more guarded criticisms of some fellow MPs by Simon Hughes, the party’s president and a likely candidate.

The myth of betrayal is being fostered: that ambitious Lib Dem MPs conspired against Mr Kennedy, briefed the press anonymously, and organised a coup. Moreover, these MPs have, it is said, been acting against the wishes of the mass of activists and members who have still backed Mr Kennedy.

You can see here the thrust of a populist platform appealing to ordinary members against unrepresentative and treacherous MPs. And remember, it is the 70,000-plus members who will decide the contest, not the 62 MPs. You can easily imagine Mr Hughes claiming the mantle of the Kennedy legitimacy in sanctimonious terms: no matter that until recently relations between the Kennedy camp and Mr Hughes were at times cool.

The “treachery” case is nonsense. Most of the MPs who turned against Mr Kennedy last week had not only previously been among his closest supporters but had covered up, and suffered the consequences of, his drinking. The critics felt, reasonably, that their patience had been pushed too far and that Mr Kennedy was failing to offer a firm lead. The typically muddled comments by Mr Opik about Mr Kennedy being “hounded out”, as well as the distinction between personal sympathy for Mr Kennedy’s plight, best handled in private, and the serious political consequences.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the acting leader, is obviously the strongest candidate to take over in the short term. He has weight, authority and respect at Westminster, but his experience is almost entirely in foreign affairs and defence, and he has said little about the economy or public services. Moreover, at 64, he is at most a one-election option, as Michael Howard was for the Tories. But Sir Menzies could offer stability and time for the younger generation of talented Lib Dem MPs to come forward. Revealingly, almost all this group said on Friday that they could no longer serve under Mr Kennedy.

A Campbell leadership would also allow time for the party to develop fresh policies and a new direction. Sir Menzies would inevitably be seen as an interim figure, although the idea that he should serve merely until after the May elections is daft because leadership speculation would continue. It is, however, possible that he might serve for three years and, depending on the political circumstances, then step down to allow one of the younger generation to take over.

That is probably the best option. But as likely is that there will be a contest full of recriminations about the fall of Mr Kennedy, in which the rank-and-file are mobilised against the parliamentary leadership. And this is a battle that Mr Hughes could win, to the delight of the Tory and Labour parties, but this prospect could threaten the divisions, and sharp fall in voter support, that afflicted the Lib Dems in the late 1980s after all the arguments about the merger.

Just look at how long the Tories were riven by the aftermath of the ousting of Baroness Thatcher in 1990. The next few days are a test of the Lib Dems’ seriousness about power.

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth