Another conceptual issue is the view of some governments that they already have a good human rights record and it is therefore unnecessary for them to spend time and effort developing a national action plan. This overlooks the fact that all countries face human rights shortcomings of one kind or another. Even those that have relatively good records often face difficulties in the areas of discrimination and economic, social and cultural rights. A possible political difficulty is the perception that a national action plan might provide a basis for political attacks on existing governments or institutions. There are two broad points that may be made in response to this. • One is that the objectives of a national action plan are consistent with many of the central objectives of any government. These include increasing the standard of living and quality of life of a country’s citizens and promotion of national cohesion. They also include strengthening of legal systems so as to enable a country’s administration and institutions to function more effectively, promotion of greater trust between government and citizens and enhancing a country’s international reputation. If developed properly, the plan should thus strengthen the institutions of the State and enjoy broad support. • The other point is that the national action plan process should be carried out in an inclusive manner. While the content of the plan may well be the subject of lively discussion, the aim should be to involve all sectors of the community and all political forces in its development so that it is seen as a common endeavour around which all are united. Realistically, of course, there will be difficulties from time to time. The aim should be to work through these pragmatically bearing in mind the great value of the overall plan objectives. The following are some of the practical problems experienced in countries where a national plan has already been adopted: • • • • • • • • • Possible duplication by a baseline study of existing human rights needs assessments; Lack of clear prioritization of objectives, particularly in view of limited availability of resources; Overly ambitious and ultimately unrealistic objectives; Preparatory processes too elaborate and requiring too many financial and human resources; Failure to take into account existing initiatives, particularly by civil society organizations; Lack of agreement on implementing and monitoring responsibilities; Unmet expectations in establishing a follow-up secretariat responsible for monitoring implementation; Insufficient coordination and ownership among relevant actors and an ineffective division of labour among them; Emphasis on relatively cost-intensive proposals in an unsuccessful effort to attract major donor funding. 22