1

International Fe y Alegría

Federation and Profile

Joseba Lazcano, sj

2

Contents

I. The International Federation 1. A 30-year process (1955-1985)

2. From the Latin-American Secretariat to the International Federation (1974-1985)

3. The approved Federation 4. From the approval to the strengthening of the Federation 5. Strategic Plans and Federative Programs 6. The implementation of Strategic Plans demands a review of the

Federation. 7. General Coordinators and new headquarters in Bogota

II. The International Profile of Fe y Alegría

1. An « Apocryphal Convention » (Quito, 1968) 2. Fe y Alegría “explicitly Christian”: The profile of Campo Mata

(Venezuela, 1977)

3. « Popular Education » (Peru)

4. Social Promotion (Bolivia)

5. The final sprint

3

I

The International Federation of

Fe y Alegría

The International Federation of Fe y Alegría (IFFyA) was officially born in

November 1986 (one year and four months after the death of Fr Vélaz), during the

General Assembly that followed the 17th International Congress in Cochabamba

(Bolivia). One year before (San Salvador, 1985), the International Profile had been

officially approved. This one had been discussed and approved ‘ad experimentum’.

one year earlier, at the previous International Congress (Mérida 1984), the last one

in which Fr. Vélaz was able to take part.

The Federation’s birth and the Profile’s approval showed that Vélaz passed leaving

behind a strong, mature and healthy Fe y Alegría (FyA). Birth and approval

happened one after the other and although both facts are different, they are closely

related.

We’re going to have a look at the history of those two events. They are so

important that we can say the history of FyA is divided into two periods of 30 years

each, one before and the other after Federation and Profile (1955 – 1985; 1985 –

2015). And this also means that the first period is the one when Vélaz was alive

whereas the second comes after his death. It’s clear that it wasn’t possible to find a

clear definition of the Profile in the first insight of Vélaz, in the same way as he

wasn’t able to predict all the complexities that FyA was to generate. At the

beginning, hardly could he imagine an International Federation.

1. A 30-year Process

In those 30 years – the first of FyA and the last of Vélaz’ life – needs, occasions,

opportunities, questions, proposals… sprang up. As they say : “The need creates

its organ…”

In the direction of the International Federation (IFFyA), one may wonder at what

time Vélaz began to think about an expansion of his movement beyond Venezuela1

1 It seems that the expansion even in Africa was part of his very first dreams. This is what he says

in his commentaries of his visit to the black continent: “We began to put into action one thought almost as old as Fe y Alegría : getting into Africa” (VELAZ JM “Impresiones del viaje por Africa”

4

and how the need began to be felt for some integration and collaboration beyond

the functional autonomy that never was put into question.

As far as we know, it was in November 61, six years after the foundation of FyA in

Caracas that the idea of expansion out of Venezuela 2 came out. It was during the

meeting of the Directive Committee in Caracas. We know for certain that three

years later, in 1964, Vélaz’ decision to sow his movement in other countries was

clearly taken. And the idea had already impregnated the whole of FyA. And that’s

how Ecuador started in 1964.

The same year, invitations had been received from the Jesuit provinces of Central

America, the Antilles and Bolivia. In fact the foundation of Ecuador was followed,

one year later, by the one of Panama and once again, one year later by the ones of

Bolivia and Peru. What we can call the First Period of Expansion continued with

the foundations of El Salvador (1969), Colombia (1971), Nicaragua (1974),

Guatemala (1977) and Brazil (1980) : ten national FyAs in twenty years. In 1982,

Vélaz informed the Provincials where the Movement was already present:

“In each of those countries, a torch of ideal was lighted and some well

trained people were lent for some months. Soon, they worked by

themselves adding twigs to the flames, so that the first embers turned a

large fire.

A group of dedicated men and women had taken over the fire and they are

keeping alive a movement that makes all of us wonder”3

Here’s the sequence of foundations up to the present :

1955 Venezuela 1977 Guatemala 2004 Chili

1964 Ecuador 1981 Brasil 2006 Haiti

1965 Panamá 1990 2007 Chad

1966 Perú Dominicana 2009 Uruguay

1966 Bolivia 1991 Spain 2001 Italy

1969 El Salvador 1992 Paraguay 2014 Madagascar

1971 Colombia 1995 Argentina 2014 Democr. Rep

1982). 2 Vélaz, JM. Extensión de Fe y Alegría. Informe a la Junta Directiva. 1961.

3 Vélaz, JM. Informe a los Provinciales. 1982

5

1974 Nicaragua 2000 Honduras of Congo4

We want to emphasize the criteria of 1) functional autonomy and 2) exchange of

experiences as the two main aspects of growth and organic integration.

No doubt, Vélaz was the Founder. But no doubt also that FyA was made by many

people ; this said, we must acknowledge that those people were motivated,

pushed, accompanied and led by the strategic insights of the Founder.

The statement that FyA “was not born from some planning made in an office” is

probably the sentence most frequently repeated in Vélaz’ writings. And for him, the

management autonomy – in management sciences they speak about “functional

autonomy” – was “one of the most important keys to its success, the highest

strength of identity of our movement” and we could add, the main key to its

international expansion.

“This is another secret of FyA: to have convinced and to have given full

responsibility to those who have believed. Our national and local autonomy

is one of the most powerful reasons for which FyA is, in a simultaneous way,

the effort, the enthusiasm and the creativity of many. A multi-coloured set of

courageous initiatives and initiators”5

Vélaz was well conscious that the autonomy could become a cause of dispersal,

especially in a movement led by passion. To counter this tendency of dispersal, a

strong identity was necessary. However, for him, autonomy more than a risk of

dipersal and a threat to unity was a constituent of the identity itself and, therefore,

of unity.

“One can say that all of us we enjoy the same autonomy and that this trait

contributes more than any other to make us fight under the same banner”6

For the autonomies to share the same identity up the point of fighting “under the

same banner”, it became evident there was a need for meetings of experience

exchange and of affective proximity. And they began to be regularly called. These

4 Fe y Alegría in DR of Congo started in 2014 and its joining the International Federation i in progress. When these notes wqere about to be published, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana had officially requested permission from the Federation to start activities in that country. Also a dialogue has begun in other African countries in order to create FyA in them.

5 Vélaz, JM. Fe y Alegría: vocación de servicio a muchos, without date, 1974 probably.

6 Vélaz, JM. Valores de Fe y Alegría, 1978

6

meetings at the country and international level “fulfill an important role of mutual

information, cohesion, unity building and sharing of responsibility and this within a

de-centralized administration”7

The meetings, on the other hand, showed the need for instances of coordination

and even for a leader at a higher level. This is why, in 1976, Vélaz expressed the

need to equip themselves with statutes:

“Given the growth of FyA, there is this need for a higher system of

governance more active and coordinating that in the past. From it, everyone

will withdraw common benefits”8

Autonomy and exchange of experiences – or, their synonyms enterprising spirit

and identity - were the key to a strengthening and development of its institution.

2. From de Latin-American Secretariat to the International Federation (1974 –

1985)

The first step towards a Federation was, perhaps, “the need felt by all” (San Salvador, 1974) for the launching of a Latin-American Secretariat. The question matured during three consecutive Assemblies. In San Salvador, Bolivia was asked to work out a pre-project. In Medellin, the following year, their text was criticized, especially by the Peruvian Delegation, because of their juridical bias. In Puerto Ordaz (Venezuela, 1976) there was :

“a need for something living and functional, a body that should integrate ideals, principles and actions, something that won’t be a brake, that will put into movement and unify strategies of service, that will gather ideals and problems, that will circulate them around, that will support and help reflection a far as possible”

7 Ib.

8 VELAZ, JM. Contribución a los futuros estatutos de Fe y Alegría. 1976.

7

During the debate two tendencies took form. One group asked for a collegial

Secretariat, with the mission to spread information, to help with staff and to unify

the main lines of FyA (in particular, the IRFA, the radio Institutions). Another group

preferred the presence of one person as the Secretary, working full time, with the

mission of supporting, spreading and coordinating the educational lines, always

being guided by the International Assembly that is the highest authority of FyA. The

first option was chosen and some recommendations were added:

To ask for financial help from Fr General’s Fund for Apostolic Works.

To entrust the Secretariat the task of fixing the agenda of the International Assemblies after consultation of the base.

To avoid any possible image of inspectors or even of travelling salesmen.

To write an agile and practical Set of Rules that will state norms for the actions of the Secretariat (for this, advice and suggestions were asked from the Provincials)

To study ways to unify criteria (using even ‘fraternal correction’) in order to back, acknowledge and determine what is and what is not FyA.

To explore new ways of popular education.

It was also recommended that they should name some persons who, without leaving their jobs, would help the Secretariat in such domains as information about what is being done in each country, pastoral work, a documentation centre and some kind of periodical.

It’s clear that this project of Latin-American Secretariat is like an advance of the

International Federation.

The first Latin-American Secrétariat was formed by Fr. José María Vélaz

(Venezuela), Fr Jaime Vélez (Colombia), Mr. Humberto Portocarrero (Bolivia) and

Fr. Antonio Bachs (Peru).

Five years later, in Bogota (1981) “they agreed to establish an organism that would

represent the Institution” and this by means of two structures : 1) The Directive

Committee made of two Country Directors and the Founder of FyA Fr. José María

Vélaz; and 2) The Executive Committee, the arm of the Directive Committee, agile

and efficient, chosen by it and formed by three Country Directors.

Fathers Antonio Bach, José Antonio González Durana and José Manuel Vélaz

were elected for the first mandate of the Directive Committee together with the

Founder. Fr. Víctor Blajot was also integrated in the quality of International Advisor.

The immediate objective of this Committee was to fix up criteria for the

relationships with the Provincials “in order to work together to favor a better

8

relationship and to prepare the appropriate juridical tools”9

The following year, 1982, Fr José Vélaz wrote :

“One of the considered models was the structure that exists in the Society of

Jesus in the Sector of Education: Fr Sauvé is the Secretary by Fr General’s

delegation. It wouldn’t be the same kind of Super-Provincial authority but the

Delegate would have a charge of representation, which would give him

some moral authority and would allow him to act for the common good in

agreement with the Provincials and the Country Directors of FyA. Also this

Delegate of Fr General would have the advantage of being able to act in the

new countries which would integrate FyA in the future. The jurisprudence

that exists to guide different apostolic activities of the Society (universities,

etc). could give us important orientations”10

Two years later, at the 15th Assembly (Mérida, 1984), the Executive Committee

appears made of Fathers Antonio Bachs (Peru), Roberto Caro (Colombia), Victor

Blajot (Bolivia) and Ignacio Marquínez (Venezuela). Fr Blajot is there “as the Latin-

American Advisor of FyA and Fr James W. Sauvé as specially invited to the

Congress in his quality of Secretary of Education of the Society of Jesus”.

At this Assembly, when the Directors were asked whether to maintain the

Executive Committee, they voted in favor of it and they decided the replacement of

one member every year.

This Assembly of Mérida, the last in which the Founder took place is extremely

important in the history of FyA because the International Profile was approved in it.

As usual, it was approved only ‘ad experimentum’ for one year. The final approval

would be given the following year in San Salvador. And also on the agenda of the

same Assembly it was foreseen to deal with the question “Federation, yes or not?

Opportunity, need, procedures”. But, of course, there was no time to discuss both

big questions in one Congress.

“To the gathering, Fr. Victor Blajot explained the process followed during the

year to establish FyA as a Federation and the motives why they were going

that way. It was required in order to join Unicef and Unesco – something

FyA had requested. The document in question had only a provisional value

until it was thoroughly treated. Since at this time of the Congress, there was

9 VELAZ, JM. Informe a los Provinciales. 1982

10 Ib.

9

not enough time for reflection, the group of Directors decided that the

document would continue to be studied throughout the year and this point

would be put again on the agenda of the following Congress”

3. The approval of the Federation

The following Assembly (San Salvador, 1985) formally approved the creation of the

International Federation. It’s worth copying three paragraphs of the Act of

Approval. In them, the essence of the Federation is explained:

“FyA is a de-centralized institution where each country has administrative

autonomy. According to such world organizations as Unesco, Unicef and

others, our presence in ten countries does not give a character of an

international work unless we become a Federation. The Assembly decides

to create the International Federation of Fe y Alegría unanimously”

“Given the work accomplished during the school year 84 – 85, it was easy to

finish the writing of its statutes. The analysis and discussion for approval of

the Internal Set of Rules was more laborious. The Statutes fix as the highest

authority the General Asssembly, namely the Country Directors, the General

Coordinator of the Federation who will be its legal Representative at the

international level, the members of the Executive Committee and a qualified

additional Delegate by country.”

“The General Coordinator will be named by the Provincials of the Society of

Jesus where FyA is present out of three names presented by the General

Assembly. The Executive Committee will be the body in charge to prepare

the General Assemblies and International Congresses. It will be formed by

four members: the General Coordinator and other three members elected by

the General Assembly”11

(See the Statutes of the International Federation)

4. From approval to strengthening of the Federation

In 1985, the approval of the Federation with its Statutes and Internal Set of Rules

couldn’t accomplish everything that was implied in them.

During the first decade, the body that did most of the work was the Executive

Committee (of course with the leadership of the General Coordinator and with the

11

Acta XVI Asamblea y Congreso. San Salvador, 1985

10

yearly International Assemblies in the background). The most recurring themes are

some clarifications of the statutory procedures, the re-stating of the identity as

Popular Education, the priority given to education for work, communication and

exchanges among diverse countries, working out of statistics, the relationship of

FyA with the Society of Jesus, the possibilities of collaboration with Unesco and

Unicef, different evaluations of FyA (especially the one made by Chili’s CIDE, 1996

– 1998), the Statutes that must be defined by each country, the entry of new FyAs,

the opportunity of writing the history of FyA (at global and country levels)12,

voluntary work, financing, etc.

In 1995, the General Assembly of Los Teques (Venezuela), entrusted the

Executive Committee the task of working out a proposal of Institutional

Strengthening. The committee worked at it for three years. As the result of this

effort, the General Assembly of Bogota (1997) decided to celebrate in Lima the

following year a Seminary-Workshop about Institutional Strengthening before the

International Congress. The following Assembly, as the highest authority of FyA

assumed its proposals. No doubt this was the most crucial moment of the

launching of a vigorous process of institutional strengthening of the Federation.

The Seminary received the reports of the work done in every country during the

past year. They were gathered around four themes: 1) Elements of the Mission; 2)

Challenges; 3) Strengths and Weaknesses; 4) Lines of Action for the project of

institutional strengthening from two points of view: country and Federation.

To meet the challenges identified as a priority, three general lines of institutional

strengthening were defined: identity, management and education proposals. The

point was to find in them new ways through concrete actions.

The functional structure of a General Coordinator, an Executive Committee and the

Assembly was re-stated. It was deemed convenient to add the support of an

Executive Secretariat and of specific technical teams. The initiated experience of

Geographical Regions (Central America, Andean Region and the Southern Cone)

was validated not as a new structural organization but as meeting spaces for the

exchange of experiences, evaluation and planning.

It’s clear that the Seminary of Lima was an important starting point for the

integration of projects, for the joint implementation of projects, for the promotion of

communication among countries, for the creation and increase of relationships with

12

That history was published in 1999 in Caracas with the title : De la Chispa al Incendio. La historia y las historias de Fe y Alegría, 382 pp.

11

world organisms (Unicef, Unesco…) for seeking new financing sources, for

improving management, for making some follow up of the agreements of

Congresses and Assemblies, for defining policies of public action, for facilitating

covenants with similar institutions and congregations, etc.

Quito’s Assembly the following year will be remembered as the one that initiated

the process of working out the first of the three five-year Strategic Plans already

completed so far. (At the time this was called Global Plan of Development and

Institutional Strengthening, PGDFI in its Spanish acronym).

5. Strategic Plans and Federative Programs

The proposal presented at the Seminary-Workshop of Lima (1998) led to the First

Strategic Plan for the period 2001 – 2005.

In 2003, during the mid-term evaluation, the process of working out the Second

Strategic Plan (2005 – 2009) started. Its evaluation started in 2008. And throughout

2009, consultations and studies were made for the working out of the Third Plan

(2010 – 2014).

All along the three plans we can notice their faithfulness to the Profile, their

consistency in innovation and growth and their openness to new challenges and

frontiers. The 3rd Strategic Plan sums up the evaluations of the two previous ones.

Below we give a summary of what they consider as “important steps forward” of

the first two Plans13

Steps forward of the First Strategic Plan

A greater articulation of the Movement and a strengthening of the instances

of the Federative Direction thanks to a technical structure able to impulse

federative action and to support countries.

The creation of the Country Directors’ Council in order to look for a

consensus about the action of the Federation and for agreement in policies

and plans.

The promotion of international workshops.

The launch of some basic computing network in each Country Office, the

development of the Federative Web and the impulse of computing education 13

Federación Internacional de Fe y Alegría. III Plan Estratégico de la Federación Internacional de Fe y Alegría 2010-2014.

12

at schools.

The program of “Popular Educators’ Training”.

The rendering of significant experiences systematic and their spreading

them out.

Steps forward of the Second Strategic Plan

Development of the identity and common mission.

Institutional strengthening in several countries;

Setting of quality of education as the central concern.

Technical and vocational training.

The offer of computing education.

The renewal of the radio institutes

Proposals in the areas of social promotion.

Training and materials for teachers and head teachers.

Improvements in management, planning and projects.

In the domain of public action, working in network and in agreement with

others.

Expansion of FyA (Chili, Haiti, Uruguay, Chad)

Strengthening of the capacity of Federal Work.

Strategic Plans function through Programs that must pursue Strategic and

Operative Objectives, following Lines of Action that get to Expected Results.

The 3rd Strategic Plan that ends in July 2015 encapsulates 10 Programs that

pursue 10 Operative Objectives:

P 1 To implement a system of continuous improvement of quality in education,

as the main characteristic of the Movement, aiming at the service of the poorest.

P 2 To strengthen and to promote training for work, that is: technology

education, general work competencies, technical capacity building and vocational

13

training at different levels and different curricula in order to facilitate the

employment and social integration of the finalists.

P 3 To spread the use of technologies of information and communication in

education, in networks and in management in order to strengthen communication

and learning among actors and instances of the Movement.

P 4 To promote the training of teachers and head teachers for their blooming

as people identified with the values and mission of the Movement, pedagogues

who know what to teach and how to teach, in continuous search for quality,

innovation and the rendering of their practice systemic, active citizens who develop

the participative management of their centers and who commit themselves to

social transformation.

P 5 To promote proposals of non formal education and social promotion

through renewal, expansion and search for new ways to include the excluded from

the education system, to develop andragogy, political training and community

development.

P 6 To strengthen management (planning, projects, human resources,

fundraising, communication, … ) in a way that is coherent with the values and

mission of the Movement.

P 7 To work out an offer of education in values articulated in an action inspired

by the Gospel so as to strengthen the identity to cement human and civic attitudes.

P 8 To favor public action in the domains of education and social equity at

country and federation levels.

P 9 To launch peer work in network for a better exchange in the participative

implementation of projects.

P 10 To face the new forms of injustice in education and in society in general and

to go to new frontiers, especially in Africa in order to keep alive the fire of our

charisma.

On top of all this, the 3rd Strategic Plan created ‘Peer Networks’ among the FyAs

interested in such specific questions as migration, intercultural bilingual education,

special education, radio education, etc.

There are still some evaluations to be made of the 3rd Plan before the starting of

the 4th one. On the other hand, surely the recently finished International

14

Symposium on Innovation (Managua, October 2014) will throw light on the new

Plan and on the future of Fe y Alegría.

6. The implementation of Strategic Plans demands a review of the Federation

Clearly, the simple structure of the Federation became like too tight clothing for the

ambitious perspectives of the Strategic Plans. Already the 1st was seen as

impossible to implement with the existing structure. The Assembly of Lima stated

the need for change within the Federation in order to fulfill the tasks demanded by

the PGDFI.

They made the following proposals:

- Naming a General Coordinator who will work full time. His profile is given and

also the details for his nomination with the intervention of the President of the

Conference of Provincials of Latin America (CPAL).

- Including the presence of the President of CPAL or his Delegate at the

Assemblies.

- Changing the name of the Executive Committee into Directive Committee

because it becomes the organ of the Federation in charge of watching the General

Coordinator and his team so that they accomplish the mandates of the Assembly.

- A more detailed description of the different roles within the Federation.

- The inclusion of the meetings of the Country Directors and of the Region in the

list of activities of the Federation.

In fact, the General Coordinator, Fr. Jesús Orbegozo kept his job of Country

Director of Venezuela, but a few months after the Lima Assembly, he was helped

by Mrs. Maritza Barrios Yaselli as the full time Executive Secretary.

The 3rd Strategic Plan required a review of the General Coordination together with

another review of the Country FyAs. Here we reproduce some paragraphs of this

Plan that show the maturity reached by the Federation at its 30 years of age :

1. Structure for the management of the Plan

The implementation of this Plan asks for the participation and coordination

of efforts from the Country Directions, the teams of Programs and the

Network of Peers, the Office of the Federation, and the different directive

instances at the international level (General Coordinator, Directive

Committee, Directors’ Council, General Assembly). After the evaluation of

the 2nd Plan, it was felt necessary to make a revision of the structure of the

15

Office of the Federation in order to face the new priorities. This task was

entrusted to the Directive Committee together with the revision of the

Manual of Organization and Functioning.

The general function of the Office of the Federation and of the FyAs will be

first explained. Then, we’ll describe the areas and the functional

relationships that need to be strengthened. Also the criteria and procedures

for the creation of the network of peers will be explained and at last an

Annex will be added to explore the synergic articulations between programs

and networks. The details will be explained in the Manual of Organization

and Functioning

2. Functions of the Office of the Federation and of FyAs with regard to the

Plan

The Office of the Federation with its parts, programs and networks is to

design actions together with the FyAs, to look for funds for them, to

coordinate them, to implement them and to assure their follow up, to

promote reflection about what is being done, about the management and

about public action, to organize activities of training and capacitating. It’s not

its mission to fundraise for country activities. This is up to the Country

Offices of FyA.

The strategic programs and the peer networks are ‘services’ offered among,

for and with the FyAs. It’s the responsibility of Country FyAs to bring in

human and financial resources to collaborate in the federative actions in

which they take part. As for the rhythm of implementation, both parts, the

Federation and the Country FyAs will have to come to an agreement.

The same must be said about the sustainability of actions in the future.

The agencies of cooperation that finance federative projects very often do

not allow a direct distribution of resources to the Country FyAs. On the other

hand, the needs and requests of each are particular because of differences

of prices and actions in the countries. This renders the profile and budgets

of the projects very complex and needs some kind of articulated work of the

teams of the Federation Office, of the Countries and of the Programs. And

the same has to be said of the implementation and of reports. This last

phase requires a very special articulation with strict respect of chronograms

and the abeyance to the requirements of the agencies from everybody

concerned.

16

7. Financial support to the Federation

In good justice, we must acknowledge the financial supports counted upon by the

International Federation of Fe y Alegría.

From the first years, Fr Vélaz counted on the important economic cooperation of

two Jeuits in Spain: Fr. Faustino Martínez Olcoz in Pamplona and Fr. Cesáreo

García del Cerro in Madrid opened an office each for support to Fe y Alegría. This

was done in 1962 for the first and 1963 for the second.

22 years later, at the setting of the Federation, their support was important enough

to allow its birth and growth.

Afterwards, their work led to the creation of ‘Entreculturas Fe y Alegría Spain’

which was key to channel help from the Spanish State and other sources of

financing that helped the development of the Federation and of Country FyAs.

In the process of the institutional development of the Federation, with the creation

of the Executive Secretariat and for the functioning and launching of the First

Global Plan (1998), one must acknowledge the continuous help of AVINA, which

later became the Magis Centre in Caracas. All federative and country projects of

the plan were financed by it. This Centre, however, was thought of as only a

temporary help.

ALBOAN and other agencies were also important. And one cannot not mention the

support of companies that help in the context of corporative social responsibility.

The most relevant are Accenture, Inditex, Porticus, Telefónica…

8. Général Coordinators and their new Head Office in Bogota

The first General Coordinator for the period 1986 – 1990 was Fr. Victor Blajot

(Bolivia) who, since 1981, was part of the Executive Committee in his quality of

Latin-American Advisor. He was the Coordinator of the Executive Committee when

he was named General Coordinator.

He was followed by Fathers Antonio Bachs (Peru, 1991- 1995), Jesús Orbegozo

(Venezuela, 1996 – 2003) and Jorge Cela (Dominicana Republic, 2004 – 2009).

The present General Coordinator is Ignacio Suñol (Bolivia), chosen by the

Assembly of San Salvador (2009). This Assembly, because of the growing

complexity of the international operation, advised, on one hand, that the charge of

General Coordinator should be a full time job – a decision already taken by his

17

predecessor Jorge Cela – and, on the other, that the legal head office of the

Federation should be permanent, in order to have a stable team and infrastructure.

Having considered different possibilities, Bogota was the chosen town. The office

was inaugurated on March 4th 2010 and legally recognized on March 24th 2011.

Previously, the Federation had had four different seats in the countries where the

General Coordinator was also Country Director. The juridical personality of the

Federation of FyA in Venezuela has been kept, with the General Coordinator of

Bogota as his Representative.

18

II : The International Profile

Of Fe y Alegría

The process that goes from the first questions on its identity to the International

Profile was parallel to the process we’ve just explained from its birth to the

International Federation.

Of course, at the beginning, its identity was expressed out of the dreams and

words of Fr Vélaz. His authority was not in question. However, one cannot say that

his ideas were clear and definitive. In 1966, eleven years after its inception, he

found the expression of “the primitive identity which stands as the will to serve the

poorest and help them efficiently by way of integral education”14.

An identity cannot be defined by abstract statements. In such a ‘movement’ as Fe y

Alegría, the identity is not something that is formulated and taught/learnt. It’s

history lived, experienced. The identity was always and always will be in

construction.

The putting into words of the International Profile was made in 1986. Before that,

there was a long history of different trials as “Country Principles and Values” or

otherwise.15 For example :

1977 Venezuela: Declaration of Campo Mata

1977 Colombia (Medellín): Profile of Fe y Alegría

1981 Peru: Profile of Fe y Alegría

1882 Ecuador: Profile of Fe y Alegría

1982 Bolivia: Frame of Reference

1983 Brasil: Frame of Doctrine

1983 Venezuela (Caracas): Profile of Radio Fe y Alegría IRFA (rough draft)

1984 Panamá: Frame of Reference

1984 Colombia: Frame of Reference

1984 Ecuador (Guayaquil): Frame of Reference (unfinished project)

1984 Guatemala: Identity project

1984 El Salvador: Frame of Reference

In this process of building the International Profile, we must distinguish four

significant instances that had a special momentum: 1) The “apocryphal convention”

14

VÉLAZ, JM: “Informe al P. Viceprovincial y a la Junta Directiva”. Caracas, 09.01,1966. 15

CARO, Roberto: Ideario Internacional. Texto y comentarios. Bogotá, 1985 Mimeo (dos volúmenes de 86 y 116 pp.

19

of Quito, although it’s not part of the documental patrimony of the Movement (Vélaz

did not take part in it and he didn’t approve it). The Acts, however, expressed

important reflections that, later on, led to the wording of the Profile; 2) ‘Popular

Education’: This concept stated by Vélaz from the beginning, received a

complement of meaning in Peru during the years 70; 3) ‘Social Promotion’ : again,

this concept that can be called the second family name of Fe y Alegría, was best

put in application in Bolivia and 4) The Profile of Campo Mata : in a polemic

context, this meeting, no doubt, produced the most defining reflection of a mature

identity.

1. An “apocryphal convention” (Quito, 1968)

As a consequence of the “functional autonomy” pleaded by the Founder himself,

there appeared questions about the identity of FyA that required clarifications. In

this sense, the “International Convention of Fe y Alegría” that took place in Quito

from the 30th of October to the 4th of November 1968, was significant. This meeting

had neither the presence nor the approval of the Founder. He called it

“apocryphal”.

The motive for the gathering was the launching of the campaign of the Lottery.

There were three Directors from Venezuela, two from Ecuador, two from Peru, one

from Panama and another one from Bolivia. The one who organized and presided

the meeting was Fr Ricardo Herrero Velarde, who had recently arrived at

Venezuela, sent by his Jesuit Superiors to back Fr. Vélaz (and possibly to succeed

him…).

The main objective of the reunion was the reflection about what – in the language

of the time – was called the ‘ideology’ of FyA. “The first meeting, says the Act,

focused on the personal expressions of experiences and ideas around the theme

‘What is Fe y Alegría?’”

As they wanted to make this reflection without feeling the weight of the authority of

the Founder, intentionally they sent the invitation to Vélaz late, so late that he had

no time to buy the flight ticket from Mérida to Quito.

Let’s remember that 1968 was the year of Medellín, the year when Gustavo

Gutiérrez published his book “Theology of Liberation”, the year of the “Letter from

Rio” (of Fr Arrupe to all the Provincials of Latin-America), the year of the coup of

the Peruvian nationalist military, the year of the French Mai 68, and of the success

20

of “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, and of lots of dissent within the Church and

the Society…

However, when we read the Acts of the meeting of Quito today, our attention is

drawn to three points:

All the ideas in the Acts seem in agreement with Vélaz’ thought (who, on

the other hand, is never named).

The criticisms – that one can understand, given the context – deal only with

external aspects, as the absence of planning at the country level or some

light allusions to the direction and…

Although the ‘convention’ hurt Vélaz, all the ulterior correspondence with

the participants is really cordial – without resentment or complaints – just

like working companions who share the same commitment.

2. Fe y Alegría “explicitly Christian” : the Profile of Campo Mata (Venezuela,

1976)16

In the years 70, in the Normal School “Nueva América” of Maracaibo, a remarkable

group was taking form, a group of educators with vocation, with enthusiasm and

with impassioned creativity, possibly the group that has been the most productive

in the pedagogical history of FyA.

When the Ministry of Education closed the Normal Schools the ‘group of

Maracaibo’ became a ‘Pedagogical Commission’ that was integrated in the Office

of the Zone of Maracaibo. This gave a new orientation to the office that, until then,

had had only an administrative function. This new orientation, more pedagogical,

became a national policy for FyA.

Thus, the Group of Maracaibo was at the origin of fecund ulterior initiatives like the

“Centre of Training and Research Fr Joaquín” (1991), “The Program of In-service

Training for Teachers” (with an agreement with the Experimental National

University Simón Rodríguez started in 1986), the “Project of Training of Popular

Educators” (2003), the “Centre of Professional Training Fe y Alegría”, the program

“The Necessary School” and lots of research and important publications.

16

What we call now the Profile of Campo Mata was known at the beginning as “Identity and General Principles of Fe y Alegría” approved 18.04.1977

21

The group not only produced pedagogical outputs, it also formulated principles with

an impact on the institution of Fe y Alegría and this started to give worries to his

Founder.

In 1979, Fr Vélaz thought it was necessary to call the “Assembly of Campo Mata”

(Edo, Anzoátegui) that would become something historical. The context was

polemical and the convention was prepared with passion. Vélaz saw a

“background of division which is already clear in Fe y Alegría Venezuela”. In his

energetic ‘contribution to the assembly’, he manifested there was an evident need

of unifying criteria and this from two fundamentals that, for him, couldn’t be

renounced:

We cannot get away from the “the primitive identity which stands as the will

to serve the poorest and help them efficiently by way of integral education”17

This cannot be done with real efficiency if it is not done from an explicitly

Christian specificity.

The first statement didn’t raise discussion. The second, Vélaz thought it was

necessary to re-state it – at least at that moment – because of the danger of an

illusory ideological short cut “looking for salutary principles that in an atmosphere of

easiness and soft condescendence would turn us into comfortable liberators of the

oppressed classes”18

On this question, Vélaz uses very strong expressions:

“The one who doesn’t share this faith is not in Fe y Alegría. Honestly, he’d

better move away”

“A long experience proves that only the persons, the teams and the

communities with a true Christian feeling accomplish some permanent,

constructive and creative work in FyA”.

“Those who bring with them doubts and hesitations will convey only a chain

of disillusions, of useless and non-productive criticisms and, before leaving

us, will have been the cause of disasters and disasters.”

“Nothing ever can replace the Christian faith that Fe y Alegría bears in its

name”19

17

VÉLAZ, JM: “Informe al P. Viceprovincial y a la Junta Directiva”. Caracas, 09.01,1966. 18

VÉLAZ, JM. Cooperación a la Asamblea Nacional de Campo Mata. 1977. 19

Ib.

22

The explicit reference to Christian life will appear more and more often in every

country.

3. Popular Education (Peru)

From the very beginning, Vélaz named Fe y Alegría a movement of integral

popular education. Already in his first writings20, he explains that ‘Popular

Education’ has the “the specificity of a politically transforming intentionality”. This

idea, however, wouldn’t be formally acknowledged until the International Congress

of Antigua (Guatemala, 2001). Until then, the concept ‘popular’ was understood as

a reference to the poor, the ‘pueblo’, and so it only meant the target of Fe y

Alegría.

The Vocabulary of the International Profile defines ‘Popular Education’ “as an

historical and social process where, from a real immersion in the popular milieu

and thanks to a permanent effort to understand the timing of their needs, looks

forward to the promotion of people and communities so that they become aware of

their capabilities and values, they acquire some capacity to decide on their lives

and their future and they become thus the main actors of their development”

This question was a frequent worry within Fe y Alegría. It appears in the Acts of six

International Congresses (Lima 1972, Cali 1987, Lima 2000, Antigua 2001,

Asunción 2002 and Bogotá 2003).

It’s the Congress of Antigua that most clearly stated : “We call education popular

not because of its target or its style but because of its transforming intentionality”

Peru because of its political moment, because of its ecclesial reflections and also

because of the own dynamics of Fe y Alegría proved to be a privileged space to

experiment Popular Education and to reflect on it.

The 3rd of October 1968, the ‘Nationalist Army’ made a coup and established the

‘Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces’. Four years later, they launched

a ‘Reform of Education’. Fr. Ricardo Morales became the Vice-President of the

Commission in charge of this reform and it was him who, as a Provincial had

signed the Act of the foundation of Fe y Alegría in that country. The reform aspired

20

In the foundation of Fe y Alegría Ecuador, just three days after the creation of the first Directive Committee, “after a long report on the social principles on which the work of education of Fe y Alegría is based, Vélaz stated that there was a need for FyA to be not only an organization to found schools, but also a movement that aspires to realize a true social revolution by means of a thorough education”

23

to get its inspiration from “a philosophy of man as a being who can only get to his

plenitude in the justice of inter-personal relationships and in social dialog” and in

this way to manage to become thus ‘the man of the four Cs’ : Communitary,

Critical, Creative and Committed. The influence of Paolo Freire’s ideas was

evident.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the military coup wasmade four weeks after the end of

Medellín. We remind this, not to say there is a relation of cause and effect but just

to be aware of the context. And Gustavo Gutiérrez was in his best moment of his

theological production21. And we can name as notorious representatives of this

tendency: Ricardo Antoncich, Alejandro Cussianovich, Romeo Luna Victoria,

Ricardo Morales ( from the “Onis Group”)... Also the Peruvian Bishops published

excellent documents in 1971, 1973 and 1976.

It’s only logical that the new wind that was blowing in the Church and the Society of

Jesus should also be blowing with force in Fe y Alegría. In this context – that,

politically, it coincides with the ‘First Phase’ of the Peruvian revolution – we can

notice three kinds of emphasis that shaped the identity of Fe y Alegría Peru and

that helped to go beyond earlier and more ‘naïve’ concepts :

Teachers’ capacity building for a project of social transformation (in the

government as well as among committed Christians). In this dynamic,

priority is given to the subject – motivated and motivating.

The influence of the school Villa El Salvador and the celebration of the 3rd

Congress in Lima (1972) for the perspective of Popular Education.

Technical Education, understood as education for work, which became a

subject that was given high value both in the Peruvian Revolution and in Fe

y Alegría Peru, in accordance with Fr Vélaz’ spirit.

The tendencies ‘of liberation’ were emphasized, pushed by the Pedagogical

Department that was more in the line of the Reform of Education. On Fe y Alegría

side, they insisted on ‘the line of work’, ‘the pastoral line of the Gospel’, the ‘human

and Christian dimension’.

In 1981 (October 30th), the Country Profile was approved, thanks to the

collaboration of several Centers. In brief, the main leading idea reflects the

Peruvian context : “conscientization (awareness building)” , “popular education”,

21

The book of his which is best known « Theology of Liberation. Perspectives” was published in 1971.

24

“the poorest”, “new men”, “agents of change capable of building a more just and

brotherly world”, “committed with their community”, “criteria based on the research

for integral and transcendent liberation”, etc.

We can add that the possible danger of staying in ideological words or sentences

was avoided because of the quality of the direction teams, both religious and lay

(from 1975, the five members of the Technical Team were Jesuits and in 1980 all

the headmistresses of the schools except two were religious22). Fe y Alegria Peru

insisted on the quality of education, training in faith, education for work, review of

the schools curricula and political training.

4. Social Promotion (Bolivia)

The second family name of Fe y Alegría, Social Promotion, was used for the first

time at the Foundation of the Movement in Bolivia, in 1966, although it is true that,

four years before, Vélaz had spoken of “Development of the community” as”a

popular movement to save the people by the effort and the social sense of this

same people”. Even better, at a time when there were already 30,000 pupils in FyA

schools in Venezuela, he thought that the new initiative of “development of the

community” was going to be a parallel and complementary movement that would

be called “Saint People”23.

We must signal that the same year when Fe y Alegria was born in Bolivia, two

other Jesuit movements were also born there, both as initiatives of social

promotion : ACLO (Acción Cultural Loyola) y CIPCA (Centro de Investigación y

Promoción del Campesinado). No wonder then that Fe y Alegria should put an

emphasis on social promotion in Bolivia.

But we must also say that Fe y Alegría Bolivia was, at the same time the one that

had the highest proportion of school children and the one that mobilized itself most

in Social Promotion. Bolivia can also show the widest diversity of beneficiaries and

the greatest variety of education offers (formal, non-formal and informal) with an

impact on the economic, social, political, cultural and religious development.

22

Of course the state of Jesuit or Religious is not an automatic guarantee of the personal or professional quality of a person. As a sociological fact, however, the statement can be accepted. 23

VÉLAZ, JM Carta en favor de “San Pueblo”, organización latinoamericana de Acción Comunitaria. 1962

25

5. The final sprint

The last months of Fr. Velaz’ life and through the year that followed his death there

was some speeding in the process of the formulation of the International Profile

with the participation not only of the Country Directors but also of the education

centers and all the staff under the direction of the International Executive

Committee.

At the 14th International Assembly, celebrated in Manta (Ecuador) in November

1983, the need was felt of

specifying the identity of the Movement, defining the fundamental lines that

must be assumed by all the countries, designing the common traits that,

within a healthy and necessary diversity, identify ourselves as the Fe y

Alegría that was founded by Fr. José María Vélaz that has grown with great

vigor in ten Latin-American countries serving the education of hundreds of

thousands among the poor and the marginalized ; the Fe y Alegría that we

want to see in a constant process of renewal and in an ever more generous

service; this one, not another24.

As a first step, the Executive Committee worked out a synthesis of different

Country Profiles written at different times and expressing diverse experiences. The

result was the “First document of work” (Bogota, March 1984).

The second step consisted in the analysis of this document made by the ten

countries and their reports. It lasted four months.

And for the third step, there was a long meeting of the Executive Committee in

Lima (August 1984) where they analyzed the 23 documents they had received (10

from Venezuela, 6 from Bolivia, 2 from Peru, 2 from Ecuador, and 1 from

Colombia, Guatemala and Panama). The result was “The second document of

work” (Lima, August 1984) that became the Project of the International Profile, that

was also studied by all the countries.

The definitive discussion took part during the 15th International Congress, at San

Javier del Valle Grande (Merida, Venezuela, November 1984). As a basis, the

participants had in their hands the document of Lima and also the documents sent

to Lima by Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador-Sierra, Ecuador-Costa, Guatemala,

Panama and Venezuela.

24

CARO, Roberto: Ib.

26

The project was studied point by point, first by the personal reading of each

participant, then by discussion in small groups followed by the reports of the

groups to the Assembly. The final text was passed on to a writing committee of

eight people. And it was approved without changes by the General Assembly.

As usual, the definitive text was approved the following year at the International

Congress of San Salvador (November 1986).

Joseba Lazcano, s.j.

Caracas, March 5th 2015

See the text of the Profile and its vocabulary.