So, the president's speech was not a majestic performance of Obama proportions. But we knew it would not be that and, to be fair on him, that is a standard few world leaders can meet. In reality, we all secretly hoped the performance would at least not be as limp and coma-inducing as last year's performance. And it wasn't.

From a purely oratorical point of view, it was much more fluid, at times it even threatened to be funny (like the response to a question posted by a voter on Facebook), but perhaps it was a tad too long. Still, a much better delivery than last year.

The ideal State of the Nation Address needs a bit of gees - energy, passion, vision - and that was missing, but it wasn't cringeworthy, so let's count our blessings (even those who are not ANC members en route to Heaven). The most important evaluative question, of course, is whether the content of the speech was up to scratch.

Here, too, although it was a mixed bag, it was a much more satisfying performance than last year. Highlights and lowlights are plenty, but some of the more important are the following:

First, as predicted, jobs featured prominently. And, not only did it do so, but for a few minutes, he also spoke rands and cents, which is a level of detail that was missing last year. The R9 billion allocated to a job creation fund, as well as the R10 billion earmarked for job-unlocking initiatives to be identified by the Industrial Development Corporation are to be applauded. The same goes for the R20 billion tax breaks aimed at stimulating new investments, and expansionary projects, in the manufacturing sector.

Of course, it goes without saying that the allocation of funds is one thing. How that money is spent (and whether it is spent at all) is another story. Furthermore, the New Growth Path aspires to create five million new jobs between now and 2020 and the sample ideas for job creation mentioned in the SONA do not get us even one thousandth of the way there. Greater detail, and more action plans, need to be put on the table before we can feel realistically optimistic.

Second, the very practical emphasis on stimulating the small business sector is to be welcomed. There was a recognition that not paying SMEs within 30 days of them invoicing a client - mostly the state - will likely lead to insolvency. It is pointless having an impressive book value when you lack the cash for an operating budget.

The president's awareness of this fact is fantastic, but a solution would be even better. Let's hope mere awareness of this bottleneck is not the end of the matter. The same also goes for the acknowledgment that legislation governing the registration of a new business has become prohibitively cumbersome.

What I liked, in particular, about these aspects of his economic analysis is that they did not fall back on grand ideological debates (no doubt to Cosatu's dismay). They located government in the heart of practical reality. And that is where the "performance-orientated" state that Zuma wants to create needs to go to.

A third strength of this speech was, in fact, of an ideological bent. It was great to see Zuma recognise that we should aim at a "developmental state and not a welfare state." So while it is humane that 15 million South Africans could access social grants over this past year, it is excellent that the president recognises this to be unsustainable unless the grants are linked to economic activity so that grant recipients can become "self-sufficient."

This ideological compromise - tough love meets unconditional help - is exactly the way to demonstrate compassion for those worse off than the rest of us, due to factors beyond their control (structural inequality inherited from the past).

The best gift to give a poor South African is the dignity of being independent of the state. Of course, as with the other good points, this analysis in the president's speech must be accompanied by policies that give effect to a good insight. The gap between policy and outcome is a post-democratic story we know all too well.

On the less than impressive side there was enough to enable sceptics to eke out a scathing response. There were strong murmurs from the gallery throughout a number of points in the speech, notably when Zuma talked of gains in education, asserted we have a free press and listed positive outcomes in service delivery. There was, not without reason, a lack of audience consensus about these glib claims.

The celebration of an improvement in matric results, for example, in the context of an unresolved public and expert debate about the accuracy of those figures and the quality of our education system (even if those figures are technically correct), shows that the president is not averse to being economical with the truth.

The same sentiment washed over me when he glibly asserted that evidence of our democracy being in a healthy state is that our chapter 9 institutions are functioning well (really?!) and that parliament does a sterling job in holding the executive to account. Now, of course we are not Egypt. But some recognition of the challenges we still face in entrenching democratic norms and developing institutions - both parliament and extra-parliamentary ones - that are genuinely healthy, would have been more nuanced, more honest.

The president omitted commenting adequately, despite speaking for more than an hour, on important issues: while he announced that a state mining company will help to realise the reality of the state being the custodian of the country's mineral wealth, the noises he made lacked clarity.

Which sectors will be nationalised? What form will it take? What will the relationship be between this state company and corporate outfits? Will the state outfit be exempted from aspects of the regulatory frameworks that the private sector is subject to? Will the state seek more tax revenue from or shares in other companies? Of course he was not going to be that blunt. But he should at least have outlined the contours of how a proper public debate could proceed. He didn't. And that was disappointing.

Those watching developments on the crime front - remember Afriforum? - might also feel that the list of statistics about improvements in crime fighting belie communities' experiences (or perceptions) to the contrary. Given that we have reason to doubt statistics that are released infrequently, and with methodologies that are not always as transparent (or as robust) as they could be, a more empathetic engagement with how crime affects us still was needed. A victim-centred analysis, and some emoting, would have had greater impact.

On the whole, however, while we have not been given a set of feasible action plans to deal with all the ills of society (especially joblessness), nor necessarily a vision or whiff of inspiration, it was a speech that demonstrated a better grasp of the practical challenges of a developmental state than last year's speech. Ultimately, a lack of state capacity will be the biggest threat to these challenges not being met. Let's hope the president will, indeed, lead a "performance-orientated state" in the weeks and months ahead. Time will tell.

- Eusebius McKaiser is an associate at the Wits Centre for Ethics and a weekly talk show host on Talk Radio 702

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter