It may have been a rather dull campaign, but no-one predicted the excitement of the results in the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections, or the nervousness with which both returning and new MSPs approached the new session. "Just under a half of Scots cast a valid vote in the Scottish Parliament election on 1 May; and, of those who did, between a quarter and a fifth cast their second vote for someone other than one of the four parties that dominated representation in the last Parliament." John Curtice's analysis of these two key facts of the election raises the first of many paradoxes: devolution appears to have made achieved little in the way of people re-engaging with the political system (at least in so far as that is measured by election turnout), but it has transformed the landscape by producing a "rainbow Parliament" of six-party politics.

Although there were 408 candidates in the constituency election (up 85) and 605 in the regional ballot (up 105), fewer than 50% of the electorate voted (down from 59% in 1999); no party received the votes of as many as 17% of the electorate.

While this is an international phenomenon across developed liberal democracies, there are some aspects of low turnout which are particularly marked in the Scottish experience. The biggest single indicator of turnout in Scotland is age, with those aged 18-24 three times less likely to vote than older groups. As is found outside Scotland, turnout tends to be lowest in those constituencies where there is a high concentration of poverty and social exclusion. This is most marked in cities - particularly in Glasgow, which had the lowest overall turnout of the 8 electoral regions (at 41.5%); Glasgow Shettleston once again had the ignominy of the lowest turnout in Scotland, at just 35%. The SNP and Labour tend to lose out most as a result of poor turnout, since they tend to attract support among younger sections of the electorate and those from lower socio-economic groups respectively, and these are the two groups least likely to vote. The main beneficiaries are the Conservatives, whose supporters, drawn primarily from higher income, older sections tend to be more likely to vote. These factors probably explain some of the huge gap between opinion poll predictions and the actual result.

What is more debatable is whether the poor turnout should be read as an expression of disillusionment with the first four years of the Parliament, or as apathy, or even as contentment with the status quo (since a desire for change might logically seem a powerful incentive to vote, if people believe that voting changes things). The failure of the Scottish People's Alliance to make any impact with their policy of ending the Parliament and returning to Westminster suggests that this may not be the popular answer. But the Electoral Commission's research by ICM found that a reduced perception of the Scottish Parliament's importance was a major factor.

Could the low poll be confirmation that "faith in political action is dead; it is technology that expresses the dream of a transformed world" (as the philosopher John Gray puts it)? This may suggest a parallel with the church, sharing the impact of a declining faith in traditional institutions; devolution, like various church reforms, may then be seen as managing decline rather than achieving renewal.

Those who believe that the key to improving turnout is easier access to voting might have to reckon with the contrast between the high turnout in Argyll & Bute and the Western Isles (where access is harder) and the much poorer figures in Glasgow. The problems are deeper, and the ICM research concludes that "the Scottish Parliament is failing to motivate the electorate", with 57% of the electorate believing it has changed little about how Scotland is governed.

The morning after the election consensus was that the key to understanding both turnout and result was a "scunner factor" - a lack of trust in politicians to keep their promises was given by 57% of people as a reason for not voting. The Sunday Herald's Douglas Fraser wrote that "this was a good election not to look or sound like a politician", and Susan Deacon was not alone in speaking of a "crying need (for politicians) to reconnect".

Certainly, there was a real sense of four parties squabbling over the same middle ground, and Fraser suggests a reaction against "multi-party politics between all-male, middle-aged leaders who agree on more nurses, teachers and police". 48% of people felt the parties were very similar, and there were those in the SNP who attributed their poor showing to a failure to offer real choices. Again, however, there are anomalies. If the electorate were reacting against large party, grey machines, why was John McAllion, the first term's most conspicuous rebel (and independent champion of ordinary voters through his convenership of the Public Petitions Committee), defeated by the SNP in Dundee?

The evidence suggests that a growing number of voters are choosing to vote for different parties on the 1st and 2nd votes, and to use the 2nd vote for smaller parties or independents. This may be due to an increasing awareness that some of the larger parties may not be likely to pick up any seats from the list in a particular region, to a willingness to move beyond traditional loyalties on the second vote, or to a sense that the second vote expresses a second preference.

Whatever the electoral logic, it is arguably much more the effect of the voting system than a change in preferences that has brought the rainbow effect. The SSP, for example, would have struggled to save deposits in all but a few constituencies under traditional Westminster election rules, and Labour would have had a very comfortable overall majority with almost 2/3 of the seats under "first past the post" (on around 1/3 of the first vote).

At the start of the campaign, the election was overshadowed by events over which the Parliament had no power - the war in Iraq (perhaps reinforcing a sense that the Scottish Parliament is not the one that really matters); yet the final result may have been influenced by the "Baghdad bounce" reinforcing Labour support after the fall of Saddam's regime.

Modern politics, in which policies are determined more by the responses of focus groups than by an ideological stance, does not offer stark, value-based choices. The four main parties' manifestos were remarkably similar in terms of policy content, with discernible differences to be found only in the finer detail. Common themes were more police officers on the beat, more doctors and nurses, higher nurses pay, a greater emphasis on the environment, opposition to university top up fees and cutting or freezing business rates. Even Scottish independence (the clearest issue between the two largest parties) seemed to play little part, with differences narrowed by the argument from several sides for fiscal autonomy. Of course, a further twist in the result meant that, despite the SNP's poor results across the country, there are more MSPs committed to independence than before the election.

While there is certainly disaffection among Labour supporters, the failure of the other three main parties to capitalise on this indicates that there is no single obvious alternative for these voters to turn to, with the Scottish Socialists, and to a lesser extent, the Greens the main beneficiaries, where in 1999 these votes mainly went to the SNP.

If there was a key issue, it was youth crime, with the agenda dominated less by policy clashes than by which party could appear most determined to solve the problem. That is certainly the issue most clearly carried into the new Parliament.

No less than 20% of MSPs are new, and 39.5% are women (up slightly from 37%). Yet there are still no MSPs from an ethnic minority group, and the social, age and educational profile of the Parliament looks broadly similar to its predecessor. Indeed, the age profile has moved up, with 17 MSPs over 60, compared to only 8 in 1999; only 22 are now under 40, compared to 38 four years ago. Only slightly fewer MSPs (30) than in 1999 (32) have no previous political experience, and 47 have been Councillors (previously 41). Perhaps one of the more surprising figures in the profile drawn up by Parliament's information service is that the largest category of occupational background of MSPs is that of business and finance with 29 MSPs (26 pre-election); 25 have worked in education, and 18 in health or social work (previously 20 and 16). The 26 who were not re-elected were evenly divided amongst those retiring (9), those defeated (9) and "friendly-fire" casualties of their own parties re-ordering of lists (8).

The new party balance is 50 Labour MSPs (down by 6), 27 SNP (down 8), 18 Conservatives (no net change), 17 Lib Dems (no change), 7 Greens (up by 6), 6 Scottish Socialists (up by 5), 3 independents (up by 2), and 1 from the Senior Citizens Unity Party. Although the big story of this election was the swing away from the larger parties towards both smaller parties (the SSP and the Greens) and to independent candidates, with no less than 17 of the 129 MSPs now from outside the main four parties, the resulting coalition majority of 6 (after election of the SNP's George Reid as Presiding Officer) probably seems narrower than it is in practice, since any challenge would depend on uniting the diverse other groups.

The SNP's claim to be the "official opposition" (itself a Westminster concept) seems shakier, since their group comprises only 44% of the non-coalition MSPs (compared to 62% before the election), although they remain the largest opposition party. The Tories and LibDems, described as "niche parties" by one academic, held their own, against many predictions. Despite the media focus on the greater diversity, the numbers game by which control is already being exercised through the Parliamentary Bureau means that the balance of power is relatively undisturbed.

Yet each of the two largest parties entered the "jungle" of the new Parliament expressing nervousness about suggestions of "madness and craziness" and of turning the Parliament into something more like the Big Brother house. The disruptive potential was clearly seen in the oath-taking, when SSP and Green members were joined by independents and a handful of others in expressing reservations about an oath of loyalty to the Queen. No choice is given under the Scotland Act about this oath, although there is freedom to express it in religious terms ("so help me God") or in the secular form of solemn affirmation. Some media comment expressed disquiet at the number of MSPs who affirmed (72), although among their number were several committed Christians who chose, perhaps on Biblical grounds, not to invoke God in taking the oath; perhaps there is a lesson here in being cautious before condemning MSPs as "moral and spiritual cripples" (as one Scotsman writer urged the Kirk to do).

With a diversity apparently given a royal seal of approval, Parliament looks like being more interesting, and more colourful over the next four years – starting from the swearing-in ceremony where the number of red jackets sported by Labour's female MSPs were described as making the chamber reminiscent of a Butlin’s Holiday camp!

The low poll is being seen as a "wake-up" call to our politicians, but what is the effective response – to look for ways of boosting the vote next time, to work harder on Parliament's image, or to recognise the need for new forms of engaging people (sharing in power, as the CSG principles envisaged)?

The system of proportional representation has helped make the Scottish Parliament look more European, with its coalition government and six party system, including a complement of 7 Greens. It is important not to overstate the pluralist case, however, as the vast majority - 86% - of MSPs represent one of the four main parties. While the SSP and the Greens are now entitled to a place on the Parliamentary Bureau which allocates committee places and organises business, the first signs are that the four established parties will together ensure their exclusion from key positions.

The Lib-Lab coalition’s slim majority should mean that the Greens in particular may wield influence, with a greater environmental focus in this Parliament. However, much depends on the coherence of the small parties and independents, who in representing quite disparate interests, are unlikely to form a coherent anti-Executive voting block; enhanced status for the smaller parties will also mean enhanced scrutiny from all sides, rather than the indulgent view generally taken when their representation was more token, and they have some difficult tactical choices to make.

A dull election produced all sorts of interesting and contradictory results:

• Labour had their lowest vote since 1931, yet remain in power;
• The Tories won three constituency seats, yet there was a significant swing to the left;
• The SNP lost ground (despite making urban inroads in Dundee and Aberdeen), yet there are more MSPs committed to Scottish independence;
• The LibDems benefited greatly from the "first past the post" section of the election, yet look like achieving proportional representation for local government;
• The coalition has a reduced majority, but may be more secure;
• Party machines were rejected by the voters, while some conspicuous rebels were defeated;
• Following an election in which "the people bit back", convenership of the Public Petitions Committee has gone to a Labour party loyalist;
• The diversity of the new Parliament may mean a tightening of party discipline;
• While some changes seem dramatic, the Parliament may soon settle into the same patterns of power;
• While Scotland now looks more "different", there is some reaction against "Scottish solutions to Scottish problems".

Although predictions of mayhem are probably greatly exaggerated as the serious business gets properly underway over the coming months, the Parliament (if not the Executive) looks likely to be more radical in outlook. As Sir David Steel, acting as Presiding Officer for the last time remarked, "nobody can any longer say the Parliament is a pale imitation of Westminster."

Mixing theology and elections comes a bit too close for comfort to the dangers of deciding how God would have voted, but it may be part of our Christian contribution to ask questions about the apparent loss of faith in political solutions (and where we go from that), and about the lack of real debate about alternative values and visions. Christian engagement can't give up in apathy or frustration.