But sadly what we witness is a curious pageant of ministers coming out with fancy ideas and landing themselves in a mire of controversy. What is saddening is that repeated bravados and flip-flops have become the hallmark of UPA2. When Manmohan Singh and 19 others took oath on May 22, the whole nation waited with high expectations of good governance, quick development and a mature administration. His post-victory assurance on a 100-day agenda and his party's vow to strengthen the aam aadmi programmes had raised great hopes from an earnest PM. How come things have begun to go wrong?

It's a familiar pattern now: trusted ministers rush to the PM with bright ideas as part of his 100-day agenda; on getting his instant endorsement they make flamboyant announcements to an ever-receptive media. This happened with Kapil Sibal's sweeping educational reforms, trendy amendment on gay rights, bill for declaration of judges' assets, and Prithviraj Chavan's drought alarm. Each of these has caused considerable harm to the UPA dispensation's image as a mature government under a seasoned statesman.

Some of its smart ministers claiming proximity to the PM have caused embarrassment to the party. In some cases, the Congress establishment had to summon its Core Group to repair the political damage. This was something the leaders had never expected at a time when the Congress glory is at its peak. Instead of converting the electoral triumph and popular support into durable political assets, the party had to embroil itself in endless damage control. Sibal may dismiss it as a Jairam Ramesh putting a spoke in his revolutionary schemes. But Congress governments in Andhra, Assam, Rajasthan, Haryana and Maharashtra have also ranged themselves against him. From the start, he was in a tearing hurry to prove that he could do in 100 days what his predecessors could not do in ten years.

The 100-day agenda itself has been erratic and directionless. With 40 days already over, only some ministries have produced it. Even these are known more for their public controversies. These are being rushed through without proper date base. Both Sibal and Ghulam Nabi Azad are on a turf war on Medical Council of India. Another senior minister raised an avoidable storm on gay rights. A shocked Core Group had to freeze it as both Muslim and Christian clergy opposed it. The party establishment feels the cabinet could have waited for a week and simply put the burden of sin on the judiciary. Now it is Prithviraj Chavan's turn for creating undue panic over the drought situation. And Sharad Pawar was told to quickly tone it down.

The Prime Minister's helplessness on Mamata Banerjee is quite understandable given her thoughtless actions and arrogance. The PM could do little when she took charge as the Railway Minister in West Bengal, and not at the Rail Bhawan in Delhi. When she was called for the customary briefing on Railway budget, most of the time she spoke about West Bengal politics. She hardly had anything to say on the budget. Of the first 31 days as minister, she spent 20 days in Bengal. Between June 11 and 23, her officer on special duty paid five trips to Kolkata. Getting her signatures on files is the real worry. She has directed 'her' other ministers to follow the same absentee pattern. DMK minister Azhagiri spends most of his time in Madurai and cites it as a virtue. Can you call it 'governance'? Who can rein in such cabinet colleagues?

Why so many flip-flops and controversies in such a short time? Apparently, it flows from a misconceived self-confidence born of electoral triumphalism. It leads to the notion that the results gave a free hand to UPA2 on all matters. Normally this happens when a new dispensation like Janata Party (1977) and Congress (1960 and 84) win with a massive mandate. While mature statesmen like Indira Gandhi exercise caution, political novices mistake the mandate as a license to act on their whims.

In the first place, the UPA2 mandate is not as sweeping as that of the Janata Party, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv. Luckily, those in the Congress establishment seems to be aware of the ground realities. Second, the UPA1 had a fairly elaborate common minimum programme and the Left was ever alert on the fine print. Fearing troubles, the UPA ministers had tried to play safe. Third, the pressure from the BJP opposition is no more so strong. The UPA2 feels it is free from all restraints.

The rapidly recurring policy muddles in UPA2 has been an extension of the PM-Left clashes of 2004-08. The new skirmishes highlight the lacuna in the decision-making process under a coalitional environ as well as the Congress Party's dual power experiment. When the same person holds the post of PM and party president - as has been the Congress tradition - the question of coordination does not arise. Despite this advantage, even Indira Gandhi used to frequently call joint meetings of the CPB and the Political Affairs Committee of Cabinet to screen important decisions.

She might have sought joint meeting's screening even on issues like the Sibal reform and section 377. The tragedy of UPA2 is that it leaves crucial decisions to the whims of individual ministers. Don't forget that most government decisions have a political angle with implications on public opinion. This can be tackled only by a regular joint party-government liaison panel. Dividing the PM and party into two water-tight compartments will end up in policy flip-flops. The widening disconnect between the two .is a product of this trend.

It is time for the Congress establishment to bury the 'weak-PM' stigma and 'prerogative' myth, and put some order in UPA2's functioning. It is not just a question of the PM reining in some ministers. Instead of the Core Group doing fire fighting every time a Sibal or Moily raises a controversy, the party establishment must assert itself to put in place an institutional arrangement, a regular body of the PM and party, to routinely screen crucial government decisions before these are rushed through. (IPA Service)