During the first half of the 20th century, Argentina’s economic condition could be described as unpredictable and promoting economic inequality. Argentina’s prosperity depended heavily on its ability to export large quantities of commodities abroad, to import manufactured goods and to attract a steady stream of large-scale foreign investment to keep its economy “healthy”. “During the years 1900 to 1929, foreigners came to control between 30 and 40 percent of the nation’s fixed investments” (Keen, 312). Argentine prosperity had an immense dependency on international capital, which was vulnerable to fluctuations and unexpected international events. Since a big part of its economy, 30 or 40 percent, belonged to foreigners, any movement made by them could seriously affect Argentine prosperity. This condition of economic volatility triggered massive support for Peron because of his self-sufficiency and industrial polices that had the aim of lowering the effects that exterior economic events might have on the Argentinean economy. Apart from the economic vulnerability there also existed economic inequality where by “In 1937 a mere 1 percent of the active rural population controlled 70 percent of Argentina’s farmland, much of which they left idle” and “less than 5 percent of the active population garnered 70 percent of the gross income derived from agriculture” (Keen 313). The condition of economic inequality was a terrible issue in Argentine economics since the gap between the “have’s” and “have not’s” increased considerably. This gap called for a reformer to set wages and labor laws to adequate levels, and Argentineans’, especially the urban workers, looked to Perón, who as Minister of Labor was a passionate supporter of narrowing the income inequality gap. Thus the uncontrollable economic conditions in Argentina and income inequality between the descamisados and the oligarchs provided the perfect ground work for Peron’s plans to be effectively established and favored by the people.
During the first half of the 20th century Argentina had gone through many major political changes that consequently fractured its biggest political parties, the Radical and Concordancia, causing separation and inefficiency. The factionalized political sentiments in Argentina worked as a condition for Peron to rise to power since he promoted national unity in order to make Argentina into “a great nation”. Historian Wynia describes that the Radical Party and Concordancia, “plagued by internal division and embarrassed by [their] collaboration with the ruling oligarchs before the war, seem to have lost [their] drive and originality…and inspired little confidence in their ability to offer anything new when conditions demand[ed]” (Wynia 33). Keen, another historian, continues describing the parties as “possessing inherent contradictions in their strategies… and with uneven promises” (Keen 318). For many years the people of Argentina relied on promises of politicians to patch up the evident economic dilemmas and social instabilities, but results varied. Moreover the people’s trust for the existing political parties plummeted even lower when the started calling the Concordancia decade (1930-1943) “The Infamous Decade” and ridiculing the Radical Party as radical only to the extent the oligarchs allowed. This atmosphere of mistrust and disrespect from the people to the political parties came as an ideal condition for Perón to rise to power. Perón didn’t belong or was affiliated to any of the old political groups. Additionally Wynia argues, “It was Perón’s political practice and not political theory that distinguished Perón from his peers” (Wynia 39). The condition of a political void in Argentinean political life was filled in perfectly by Peron and his Peronism. I this way, Perón once again gained a considerable amount of support, sufficient to make the people support his democratic bid for the presidency in on 1945. Most of this political support, however, came from a newly formed class in Argentina during the 1940’s- the labor class.
Even though there was economic and political turmoil, Argentina was changing, and industrialization was progressing greatly after the 1930’s, bringing a new, larger working class that started rising important social issues. The new labor class was, to a great extent, the most important condition for Peron to rise to power in Argentina. The new labor class, as historian Wynia describes, was “excluded from politics by the ruling oligarchy and maltreated by their employers” (Wynia 42). The labor class felt ignored and that made “revolutionary doctrines popular among workers” (Wynia 42). With the labor class agitated, from the oligarchs to the military, there were concerns about radicalization of the labor class by the socialists or the anarchists. This condition of the social labor class on the brink of struggle with the system was the key condition for Perón’s rise to power since he was a government official close to the people, the Minister of Labor. Perón was the ideal man to confront the most dramatic social turmoil that was happening in Argentina in 1945, labor mass demonstrations similar to those in 1919. Before he was elected president, he managed to stop the “Liberty March” by the General Confederation of Labor (CGT) by giving it political recognition. Thus, Perón won the support of the oligarchs, whose money he saved, and the workers, whom he recognized.
When Juan Domingo Peron stepped into power in October 17, 1945 it was not a surprise. The conditions were right for his economic plan of self sufficiency, his national political unity proposals, and his social recognition declarations to be attractive to Argentina’s population. Peron’s ideology and traits established themselves in Argentina because of vulnerable national economic conditions and the social harms they created, factionalized political parties with little support from the people, and the new social questions about the labor class that Peron effectively responded to.
