A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition

Chapter 6: Dependency or Liberation, 1966–1976

. . . . . 173 A Rehearsal in Authoritarianism A broad consensus surrounded the coup d’état of June , . Both big and small business, the majority of the political parties—with the exception of the Radicals, Socialists, and Communists—and even many groups on the far left were content with the end of “bourgeois” democracy. Perón gave it quali- fied support, though he recommended a wait-and-see attitude to his followers , “to get off the saddle until the weather clears,” as he put it. The Peronist politicians were less equivocal and the union leaders downright elated, attending the new president’s inauguration while contemplating the continuance of the traditional space for negotiating and pressuring the government, perhaps finding possible points of agreement with a military man who—like Perón—emphasized order, unity, a certain paternalism, and a definite antiCommunism . This broad and varied support had to do with the initial vagueness in the positions of the various currents that coexisted in the government. The “general staff” of the big companies—the economic establishment—had direct interlocutors in many military commanders. However, other military men— above all those who surrounded General Onganía—were inspired by a more six Dependency or Liberation, 1966–1976 traditional vision, derived in part from the old nationalism but especially from the corporatist-organic doctrines that were making headway in the new right. The deep contradictions between corporatists and so-called liberals— who did not believe in either civil liberties or orthodox economic liberalism —were camouflaged in a web of social contacts and a hodgepodge of ideas, elaborated in the economics department of the Catholic University, the Institute of Political Science at the University of San Salvador, or the catechism courses that the Catholic Church—the latter embarking on a campaign to win over leadership groups and skilled in glossing over their differences —organized for the military, young businesspeople, or “technocrats of the sacristy.” Thus, for the moment, the points of agreement held sway. It was necessary to reorganize the state, to make it strong, to invest it with authority and resources, and to have it controlled from above. For some, it was the necessary precondition for an economic restructuring that would employ the traditional Keynesian recipes to break the bottlenecks to economic growth. For others, it was the necessary step for a restructuring of society itself, of its ways of organization and representation, which would eliminate the political institutions judged as harmful and create the foundation for others that were natural , corporatist, and hierarchical. The first phase of the new government was characterized by an “authoritarian shock treatment.” The beginning of a revolutionary stage was proclaimed , and to the Constitution was added a Statute of the Argentine Revolution sworn to by General Juan Carlos Onganía, designated president by the military chiefs of staff and remaining in power until June . Congress was dissolved—the president concentrating both executive and legislative powers in his own hands—as were the political parties, whose assets were confiscated and sold to demonstrate that the ban on politics was irreversible. The military itself was carefully distanced from political decisions , although on matters of national security its representation was institutionalized through its commanders. The number of government ministries was reduced to five, and a military general staff of the state was created, made up of the Security Council, the Councils of Economic Development , and the Council of Science and Technology, because in the new order, economic planning and scientific research were considered part of national security. A Histor y of Argentina in the Twentieth Centur y 174 . . . . . With political power concentrated in the executive’s hands, the regime began to stifle society. The suppression of Communism, one of the issues that most united all those in favor of the coup, was extended to all aspects of critical thought, of dissidence, even simply of difference. The principal target was the university, which was seen as the center of infiltration, the cradle of Communism , the place from which was propagated all kinds of corrupting doctrines, and the focal point of disorder, because its demonstrations demanding a greater share of the national budget were regarded as subversive behavior. The universities were interdicted, and they were stripped of their academic autonomy. On June , , the so-called night of the billy clubs, the police burst into the departments of the University of Buenos Aires and roughed up students and...