The big "L". Legacy, legacy, legacy. Every leader is concerned about it. In Britain, Tony Blair is trying to ensure that he is not remembered solely for his disastrous foreign policy stance on Iraq. Nelson Mandela's enduring legacy was a country politically freed.

Surely, as President Thabo Mbeki made his State of the Nation address last week, legacy would have been weighing heavily on his mind, maybe even more so given the political undercurrents within the alliance at present?

There seemed to be a sense of impatience at the slow pace of delivery whether in the areas of education, the expanded public works programmes, housing, land redistribution or local government.

Part of the legacy Mbeki will want to leave is that people were better off after his terms ends.

Certainly the proposed new social security measure has "legacy project" written all over it.

As ever though, the devil will be in the detail unveiled in the budget speech.

Mbeki is no Bill Clinton, so his attempt to strike a balance between technocracy and connectedness was welcome.

To have expected anything more may well have been expecting too much.

What the president did do fluently was draw our attention to that which was "ugly and repulsive" in our society: "Certainly, we cannot erase that which is ugly and repulsive … if communities live in fear, closeted behind walls and barbed wire, ever anxious in their houses … unable freely to enjoy our public spaces."

Indeed in a society in which violent crime occurs so frequently, we need to be asking serious questions about our collective morality and our social fabric.

And so as the endless dissection continues, it is worth remembering that a speech is just that - a speech.

Though it sets the tone for our political year, what we do with the rest of the year will be more important.

This week, as ministers in the cabinet hold media briefings, it will provide an opportunity to interrogate government's direction and implementation more closely.

While the president spoke frankly about the challenges of implementation, perhaps 2007 can be the year when serious inroads are made into attaining the right skills (wherever we may find them) and beefing up implementation.

For how long can we continue to make the "implementation excuse" while the poor wait?

Amid all the pomp and awkward ceremony of the State of the Nation address, it was quite easy to forget that the president was in fact fulfilling a core constitutional responsibility - reporting back to the legislature on the executive's programme of action for the coming year and its progress in the past year.

Perhaps not unsurprisingly, as parliament in recent years has mostly found itself lagging behind the key debates of society and floundering about in search of orientation.

Interestingly, the theme for the opening of parliament was fostering democratic debate.

If parliament is serious about reclaiming its role in our democracy and being a true "People's Parliament", it will itself need to ratchet up its performance.

The past few years have been difficult for parliament as it has struggled to define its oversight role (the arms deal investigation is a case in point) and has had to deal with a number of high-profile breaches of its ethics code.

It has become almost tired and predictable to say, but the "Travelgate" issue casts a pall over all parliament's proceedings and has certainly eroded public trust in the institution.

Until political parties discipline those members who retain their seats because of a healthy dose of plea-bargaining, parliament and its work will be undermined.

For law-makers cannot be law-breakers.

Recently, though, there have been some interesting instances in which parliament has been seen to flex its muscles against the powerful executive.

This is to be welcomed. Of course, it is too early to say whether single instances of robust oversight in fact signify a new, independent-minded trend.

For parliament to fulfil its constitutional mandate effectively, it will need to carve out political space for itself and be prepared to face off with the executive on occasion.

And so the future of our country is in some measure tied up with the efficacy of parliament and other democratic institutions.

If parliament is exercising its oversight role appropriately, it will be holding ministers to account for what they say and also leading debates on how to face the key challenges of our society.

This is how change happens - for societies are only moved out of complacency if there is challenge and a healthy tension between those who govern and the citizens (or their representatives).

Parliament has the chance to be at the heart of socioeconomic change and even to lead it.

So, while the president is thinking "legacy", perhaps 2007 can be remembered as the Year of Parliament, who knows?

February is head of Idasa's Political Information and Monitoring Service.

With acknowledgements to Judith February and Cape Times.