Argentina: overview and context

Peronism

Approaching a Definition of Peronism

South America in general, like all of the Western Hemisphere, has been the site of great political turbulence throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century, and many of the problems in the area that arose during the time of nation building and revolutionary regimes are still apparent in many countries. Continued regime changes and foreign intervention, through both direct and indirect military and economic means, have only served to increase the turbulence in many areas as the entire region attempts to establish itself as part of the developed world, with some countries experiencing far greater success than others. Current international attention is largely focused on Venezuela and Bolivia, in no small part due to their vocal and often erratic (at least according to Western media) leaders, Hugo Chavez and Juan Evo Morales, but just a few decades ago other powerful and charismatic leaders were responsible for bringing different countries into the headlines.

One of these was Juan Peron, the leader of Argentina from 1946 until he was deposed and sent into exile in 1955. His presidency and overall policies have been described as part of the "third way" of governmental and fiscal policy, falling between the extremes of socialism and capitalism that dominated political thinking throughout the twentieth century. This does not provide an accurate or detailed understanding of the political schema that came to be known as Peronism, however, but rather serves as an oversimplification of a system of governmental ideology with a diverse and often elusive social base and many widely varying and influential political practices. A closer examination of the particular policies Peron carried out reveals a better understanding of Peronism.

Ideologically, certain aspects of Peronism can be more easily identified in the radical changes that Peron instituted during the "revolutionary stage" of his first term as president (Romero 124). Peron believed that state control of manufacturing and resource development would lead to economic benefits for the country and its citizens, evincing an ideology that was both nationalistic and populist in its perspective (Romero). There was a strong emphasis on mass participation in government and industry, which became greatly unified under Peron (Brennan 35-7). Regardless of the ultimate effects of Peron's policies and actions, there is a definite ideology of solidarity and equality at the heart of many of these policies. The uneven way in which this ideology was carried out -- and in fact some of the equality that this ideology ultimately instilled -- can be seen in Peron's social base.

This social base also shifted during Peron's two terms in office (not counting his brief third term nearly twenty years later). His entire regimes was marked by a dislike from many on both the right and the left sides of his politics, form writers to doctors and especially the military (Brennan; Romero). Much of the peasant, labor, and servant class, however, especially those Argentineans who were still most closely identified with the indigenous groups of people in the country, strongly supported Juan Peron and his wife Eva. Her death, in fact, seemed to signal the beginning of the end of Peron as his popular support began to wane significantly and his own behavior, both politically and privately, grew increasingly erratic (Romero). As this base began to erode out from underneath him, the oppositional social forces gained in strength, culminating in Peron's eventual overthrow.

Peron's political practices, while more concretely observable than his ideology or his social base, in many instances, are in some ways more difficult to codify. His nationalization of resources, corporations, and manufacturing concerns seemed to mark a certain socialist attitude, but the essential incorporations of the labor unions at the same time reflected capitalist tendencies, which were strengthened by the way some of the companies were run (Romero, 120-3). What essentially emerged, by the end of Peron's time in power, was a certain paranoid authoritarianism (Brennan, 32-6). Strategy and manipulation became paramount in these latter years, with Peron going so far as to back the formation of a rival political party with the hope of splitting the Socialist camp and thereby consolidating his own power -- a strategy and attempt that ultimately failed (Romero 125).