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

Chapter 2: The Radical Governments, 1916–1930

Hipólito Yrigoyen served as president from  to , the year that Marcelo T. de Alvear succeeded him in the presidency. In , Yrigoyen was reelected, only to be deposed by a military revolt on September , . It would be another sixty-one years before an elected president would peacefully transfer power to his successor. Thus, these twelve years in which democratic institutions began to function normally turned out to be an exceptional period in the long run. Even though both Yrigoyen and Alvear were Radicals and had shared in the party’s many struggles, the two presidents were very different; even more different were the images that had been built around them. That of Yrigoyen was contradictory from the start. For some, he—the model of honesty and rectitude—had come to unmask the ignominious regime and to begin a process of “renewal.” There were even those who saw him as a secular saint. For others, he was the ignorant and demagogic politician, an expression of democracy’s worst vices. Alvear on the other hand was identified, for better or worse, with the great presidents of the old regime, and his political style assimilated the vices and virtues of the latter. two The Radical Governments, 1916–1930 . . . . . 27 However different their two personal styles may have been, both had to confront similar problems. Above all, each faced the double challenge of establishing the country’s new democratic institutions on solid ground and leading through new avenues of representation and negotiation the demands for social reform, which Radicalism in some ways had assumed responsibility for. This reformist impulse was not exclusive to Argentina. In Uruguay it had its expression since  in President José Batlle y Ordóñez, and in Chile since  in the figure of Arturo Alessandri. In Mexico, with much more dramatic consequences, the revolution that erupted in  and was consolidated in  similarly undertook a deep transformation of the state and society. Other reformist movements, such as the Peruvian Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA), though they did not prevail, shook up some of the oligarchic regimes and dictatorships that predominated in Latin America. In all these cases, the demand for political participation was linked to improvements in the situation of various social sectors. That mandate and that public will for reform, which doubtless characterized Radicalism and had emerged during the previous period of economic expansion, had to evolve in circumstances markedly different and infinitely more complex than anyone could have imagined. The First World War especially changed all the variables of reality: the economy, politics, society, and culture. It was not clear whether Radicalism, confronted with the new situation, had the answers or even was prepared to think about possible solutions. The war itself constituted a challenge and posed problems difficult to resolve . At first, Yrigoyen followed the policy of Victorino de la Plaza, his predecessor in the presidency: a “benevolent neutrality” toward the Allies, which presupposed the continuation of trade with traditional clients and also providing them with credits to help finance their purchases. In , Germany began to attack neutral commercial shipping with its dreaded submarines , forcing the United States to declare war, a war in which the latter attempted to drag along with it the Latin American countries. Argentina had traditionally resisted the appeals to Pan-Americanism, a doctrine that assumed an affinity of interests between the United States and its Latin American neighbors. But the sinking of three merchant ships by the Germans mobilized a broad current of public opinion in favor of breaking off relations with Germany, a policy advocated by the United States and enthusiastically supported by the newspapers La Nación and La Prensa. A Histor y of Argentina in the Twentieth Centur y 28 . . . . . Opinions were divided in a peculiar way. The army—whose professional training was German—was sympathetic to Germany, while the navy aligned itself with Great Britain. The Conservative opposition was generally in favor of breaking off relations, as were most of the Socialists, though after April  a breakaway faction among the latter adhered to neutrality, following the Soviet Union’s line. The Radicals were divided on the question, presaging future splits. Outstanding leaders such as Leopoldo Melo and Alvear supported England and France, whereas Yrigoyen, almost stubbornly, defended a neutrality that, if it did not make him an enemy of the Allies, distanced him from the United States. Yrigoyen in fact demonstrated various degrees of...