Peronism in Argentina: Definition, Ideology, and Legacy

Introduction: South American Political Turbulence and Perón's Rise

South America, like the rest of the Western Hemisphere, has been the site of great political turbulence throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century. Many of the problems that arose during the era of nation-building and revolutionary regimes remain apparent in numerous countries today. Continued regime changes and foreign intervention — through both direct and indirect military and economic means — have only deepened that turbulence 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 has been largely focused on Venezuela and Bolivia, in no small part due to their vocal and often erratic leaders, Hugo Chávez and Juan Evo Morales, but just a few decades ago other powerful and charismatic leaders were responsible for bringing different countries into the headlines.

Approaching a Definition of Peronism

One of these was Juan Perón, 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 characterization does not provide an accurate or detailed understanding of the political schema that came to be known as Peronism, however. It is 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 Perón carried out reveals a more complete understanding of Peronism.

Peronist Ideology and Nationalist Reform

Ideologically, certain aspects of Peronism can be more easily identified in the radical changes that Perón instituted during the "revolutionary stage" of his first term as president (Romero 124). Perón believed that state control of manufacturing and resource development would lead to economic benefits for the country and its citizens, reflecting an ideology that was both nationalist and populist in its perspective (Romero). There was a strong emphasis on mass participation in government and industry, which became greatly unified under Perón (Brennan 35–37). Regardless of the ultimate effects of Perón's policies and actions, a definite ideology of solidarity and equality lies at the heart of many of these policies. The uneven way in which this ideology was carried out — and indeed some of the equality it ultimately produced — can be seen in Perón's shifting social base.

Conclusion: Peronism as Unstable Hybrid

Peronism remains an elusive term; so many of the leader's acts seem to reflect conflicting views that it is difficult to codify them with any certainty. His authoritarian control over certain parts of the government and national industry has led Peronism to be equated with fascism by some, while the enduring respect of the peasant class for the leader and the promotion of equality and opportunity he achieved have caused others to regard him as a true liberal and socialist. Essentially, Peronism is something of a balance — or perhaps an imbalance — between the two. It represents a nationalization that still managed to marginalize certain elements, and a freedom that extended to economics but not to the press or free speech. Peronism reflects an attempt to control a populace in order to enforce equality, and like all other such attempts, it ultimately failed.