Akiva Eger- No blueprints for development - only options for choice

The Afro-Asian Institute for Cooperation and Labour Studies, the forerunner of the International Institute - Histadrut in Kfar Saba today, was brought into being to serve working people rather than governments. Akiva Eger was the Director of the (first) 1958-59 Afro-Asian Seminar on Cooperation in Tel Aviv, a three-month exercise involving 60 participants from 17 countries, English and French speakers. Akiva then served as the second Director of the Institute throughout its formative years (1960-1980), and remained a strong believer in the utility of cooperative frameworks until his death this year. He was one of the MASHAV founding generation, and in remembering him, his ideals and his contribution, we reprint part of an article* he wrote in 1978 about the beginnings of the Afro-Asian Institute:

"Among the institutions established during the last quarter of a century for Third World workers' leadership training, Israel's International Institute for Development Cooperation and Labour Studies must be regarded as sui generis [unique] in several important respects. It was not set up by the General Organisation of the Workers of Israel (Histadrut) on the spur of the moment but evolved, almost organically, and quite gradually from ad hoc seminars. The latter had been organised in response to a growing interest of foreign labour leaders in visiting Israel for an on-the-spot study of the role of an established workers' organisation in the nation's social and economic development.

When the Histadrut was approached in the mid-fifties by its Asian friends whom its representatives had met at international socialist conferences, and was requested to organise seminars on behalf of [developing] countries, we were taken by surprise: Israel's case was so unique, both as a people and as a country, that the specific problems of its own development did not seem to us to have much relevance to those of the Third World's regions.

We therefore met the request for studies in Israel with more than just a few mental reservations. We were in fact quite reluctant to provide such facilities. At that early period of our newly re-established statehood, we were so deeply involved in our own development problems, all but seemingly insoluble at the time, that we considered every iota of our energies to be indispensable if we were to be successful in our efforts.

In international meetings of the Socialist International in Rangoon and Bombay and in those of the International Federation of Free Trade Unions in Europe and elsewhere, the representatives of the Histadrut had met the most distinguished leaders of Asian and African Workers' organisations, trade union federations and national liberation movements. These meetings led to brief visits to Israel, where the Histadrut was hosting its Asian and African friends and showing them tiny Israel, that living laboratory of socio-economic experiences in development in which the Israeli workers' movement had been and was playing such a vital and decisive role. These visits led to more clearly formulated suggestions for seminars, our guests having had a chance to see at first hand something of the country's development. They concluded that some of the Israeli experiences might be usefully shared and analysed, being quite relevant to, and thus beneficial for, their own developing nations and workers' movements.

And so we were listeners from the beginning; we did not pretend to know more than we did; and we did not suggest "solutions". Listening carefully, we tried to understand our partners during the first ad hoc seminars organised by the Histadrut. We learned rather rapidly that all we could offer was to share our own experiences, including lessons learned from our own mistakes; to compare; to see varieties of options; to believe more strongly than before that Man can bring about decisive changes in his life's conditions if he is educating and training himself for ever higher levels of performance in changing social and economic conditions. Our admitted ignorance, first considered as a heavy liability and as a reason for not heeding the initial requests of the [developing] countries and movements, became - as we clearly see today with the benefit of hindsight - the greatest comparative advantage in our international development cooperation and/or assistance. From the very beginning, our activities were geared to comparative studies within the living laboratory of Israel's working society, rather than to indoctrination of any particular principles of techniques, or to a blind transfer of technical know-how.

Some lessons from the Institute's experience:

• A basic condition for effective cooperation in the development process is the realisation that the needs of one's partner must be understood deeply in terms of the partner's own assessment - what one patronisingly considers to be "good for others" is completely irrelevant.
• There are no blue-prints for development - only options for choice.
• A "Way of Life" can never be taught: it must be paved and used by those involved in it.
• The misery of the "human condition" is not a "pre-established social harmony", but one created by Man and therefore changeable by human effort.
• The major instrument for development is not capital, but the human individual in his/her growing capacity to change society and economy: the human individual is both the central target and the major instrument for development.
• The workers' movement must become meaningful to its members through its own humanisation: the member and his family's needs - the union as an extended family - are and must be the centre of the organisation's concern.
• Trade unionism insulated from social and economic change is inadequate: it must render more public services to the members, on a cooperative basis.
• The building of the human infra-structure has to precede that of the economic infra-structure, or at least go hand in hand with it.

The Institute's work is a bridge-building between working people, within and among nations. It therefore constitutes a progressive, peace-building factor. The Institute is hopeful that it can serve the cause of peace and development also in the geographic region in which it is located; that it can effectively assist in tearing down the walls of hatred between people and in building better human understanding in its efforts to contribute to the shaping of a more meaningful society, in the service of humanity."

Akiva Eger's ideals are as relevant today.