It is usually the domain of defeated political parties, politicians and governments to introspect and to find flaws in their thinking, actions and record of governance in order to draw the right ?lessons? to move forward. Rarely do victors do any introspection, and this particularly applies to political parties which win successive terms in government. After all, a re-election, in their view, vindicates their entire agenda, warts and all.

Put in this context, the content of President Pratibha Patil?s address to Parliament?the first big speech on UPA II?s agenda for governance?is a remarkably unexpected but wholly pleasant surprise. The UPA (and specifically the Congress) could have quite easily viewed their renewed mandate (with an increased majority from 2004) as a signal to continue with business-as-usual?something that was a hallmark of the often reluctant to rock the boat UPA I. However, the presidential address seems to suggest that UPA II is going to be much more purposive in government this time around.

Critics may contend that the presidential address gave short shrift to the areas traditionally associated with economic reform. There was no mention of any big bang measure to significantly liberalise the economy further?no mention of the banking Bill, insurance Bill or pension Bill. But in light of the political bugbear any mention of such reform tends to become, it is perhaps good politics to keep it away from the limelight, at least for now. Critically, there was a mention of what is probably the most important reform measure facing this government?disinvestment, even though the term itself was probably carefully expunged. Still, the promised roadmap for the ?listing of PSUs? is a signal enough of the government?s intent to slowly move out of the business of business (even though there is a commitment to retain minimum 51% government equity in PSUs). Even minority stake sales are imperative, to bridge the enormous fiscal deficit and fund the government?s ambitious public spending plans.

But perhaps the more important, and more difficult, challenge that UPA II seems to have decided to take up in earnest is to improve the effectiveness and delivery of their massive spending schemes, focused mostly on the social sectors. UPA I threw a lot of money at the social sectors with the accompanying rhetoric of pro-poor policies, but the outcomes were not always in line with the money spent. Here, UPA II seems to have done a lot of thinking about the mistakes made by UPA I and has moved to correct it.

It is interesting to note that many of announcements to improve delivery are in the list of to-dos for the first 100 days?there is a proposal to set up a delivery monitoring unit in the PMO; there is an even better proposal to set up an independent evaluation office at arms length from the government; the idea of a Model Public Services Law to cover functionaries providing social services like education, health and rural development is interesting but its effectiveness will depend on the yet to be announced details; quarterly reporting on the progress of flagship programmes by the ministers in charge through the media is unobjectionable in its effort to open government programmes to more detailed scrutiny.

Apart from these new initiatives to improve accountability in ongoing programmes, there seems to be a concerted move to overhaul the institutional structures of governance in the two most important social sectors?education and health. The 100 days programme includes a promise to set up a National council for human resources in health, and a National council for higher education. These councils will oversee a complete, and long overdue, overhaul of the regulatory and institutional apparatus in both sectors and hopefully reorient the systems towards higher quality standards and of course a much needed expansion in capacity, without compromising quality. UPA II has a historic opportunity to lay the foundations of world class education and health sectors over the next five years. The exit of the under-performing and instinctively anti-reform duo, Arjun Singh and A Ramadoss from the ministries of HRD and health, and the appointment of able and competent ministers in Kapil Sibal and Ghulam Nabi Azad should facilitate the process of change in both sectors. Minister Sibal already has his roadmap laid out by the reformist National Knowledge Commission, which incidentally found prominent mention in the presidential address.

A much expected announcement was the intention to introduce a National Food Security Act, which in line with the Congress manifesto, will ensure (by law) a monthly provision of 25 kg of rice and wheat to below poverty line families at Rs 3 per kg. While noble in intent, the devil will really lie in the detail. Will the government be able to reform the public distribution system by simply enacting a new law? How exactly will BPL families be correctly identified? And how will corruption and graft be prevented in a system like this? Unless satisfactory answers are found to all these complicated questions, the efficacy of the Food Security Act will be uncertain.

Many of the other grand promises will face similar problems of framing the minute details properly. Many of the promises have been made, and broken earlier?think women?s reservation

Bill. Still, now is not the time to quibble over detail. The government has at least shown intent to change things and that?s no mean achievement for a government that has just won a second successive term in office.

dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com