The presidential election in 1997 became a referendum. There was only one question - is it all right to be a Northern nationalist? The vast majority of people started the campaign indifferent to the question - but ended it forced into the position of having to choose.

And it meant that one candidate dominated the campaign, in ways that were entirely unplanned. No other question was asked about that candidate. Her expertise was assumed (and became the only yardstick by which every other candidate was measured). She was never asked to substantiate her views on a wide range of issues - and no other candidate was ever given the chance to do so. And as a result of the question asked she came from nowhere to win in a canter.

I had several opportunities to observe Mrs McAleese at close quarters during that campaign. I was biased, of course, but I didn't like what I saw. There was a ruthlessness about her campaign that left me cold. And I strongly objected to what I perceived as the hidden agenda behind her ambition - what I saw as the determination to become a focus of more reactionary values than those which Mary Robinson represented.

So I didn't vote for President McAleese. And for a large part of the first year of her Presidency I saw signs that this was not going to be a successful Presidency. As she seemed to struggle to find an agenda, one thing seemed to me to become clear - that the holder of the highest representative office in the land didn't really understand the people she was elected to represent.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with the purists who say the President isn't allowed to have an agenda of her own. In my view, anyone elected to public office is entitled to pursue whatever mandate they got - provided they do it within the understood bounds of the office to which they were elected.

But the agenda, if it is to be meaningful, must reflect the culture and values of the people, at least in broad terms.

Two issues crystallised this for me in President McAleese's case - the controversy over her receiving a Protestant Eucharist, and her decision not to attend the Dublin Horse Show. Those controversies had one thing in common.

In the first case, it was clearly an issue that mattered to her - but meant nothing at all in terms of the daily lives of the vast majority of us, Catholic, Protestant and nothing-at-all alike. In the second case, the Dublin Horse Show is an event which is treasured by thousands of Dublin and Irish families of every stripe - but was clearly seen by her as some kind of relic of old ascendancy West Brit decency.

In other words, both issues showed an office-holder who was out of touch with her electorate. They became public relations disasters, and there was a tendency to assume that the President's PR advice was bad. Not so, in my view. I don't know Eileen Gleeson (the President's PR person) well, but I know enough to know she is one of the best at her job that there is. This wasn't bad PR - it was an out-of-touch philosophy showing through.

The omens weren't good. And yet . . .

As the year went on there began to be signs that the President was listening and learning. Her response to the Omagh atrocity (including her recent appearance on the Late Late Show), her visits abroad, her role at the Armistice Day commemoration - all of these suggested a President determined to do her electorate proud. The stories one hears about the warmth of the welcome people get in the Aras is another positive straw in the wind.

There are two possible explanations. The first is, as Eamon Dunphy might say (if he didn't abhor cliches), that the first year of the McAleese Presidency has been a game of two halves. The second is that President McAleese has decided to drop the pursuit of an agenda, and just be President.

It's too early to say which of these alternatives has led to the change in her persona. If it's the second - and assuming it's a deliberate decision - I think we can look forward to a successful term. President McAleese has the skills and the poise to represent her people effectively, at home and abroad. She may not have the same instinctive understanding that her predecessor had about how influence can be exercised, but that won't matter if she is content to be an ambassador for her people, rather than a leader.

Anyone who is prepared to listen and learn has the capacity to grow. The worst that can be said about President McAleese, at the end of an up-and-down year, is that the signs are there that she is climbing the learning curve fast. Despite my bias, I genuinely admire that. Long may it last.

LET me end with one personal gripe. Sometime in the new year, I understand, the President will be jetting off to Washington (accompanied by a Minister or two no doubt) to collect the Franklin D. Roosevelt Award on behalf of Ireland. It's a prestigious award, (a magnificent bronze and a handsome cheque) given by the World Council on Disability to the country or organisation which has made the greatest strides in recognising the rights and needs of people with disabilities.

Good for President McAleese, I say, and good for Ireland (even though things have been going backwards on the disability front lately).

But what the President doesn't know, and won't be told, is that it was my wife who introduced the World Council on Disability to Ireland, and organised the nomination that won Ireland the award on behalf of the Irish Council of People with Disabilities.

If the President wants any advice on what should be done to further the cause of disability with the $50,000 that's part of the award, I know Frieda and the council would be willing to help. And if the President wants to make the issue of rights-not-charity a cause, there'll be no shortage of volunteers.

Fergus Finlay was director of elections for the Labour Party presidential candidate, Adi Roche.