|
|
|
|
Arturo Frondizi
|
| |
|
| |
Arturo Frondizi (October 28, 1908 - April 18, 1995) was the President of Argentina between 1 May 1958 and 29 March 1962 for the Intransigent Radical Civic Union.
dizi was born in Paso de los Libres, Corrientes Province to immigrant parents from Umbria, Italy. They lived in Concepción del Uruguay, Entre Rios, and in Buenos Aires and Arturo had ten brothers including Silvio, who became a lawyer and was assassinated in 1974 by the Triple A, and Risieri who became a philosopher and rector of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA).
Frondizi graduated from the UBA Law School with honors in 1930 and entered politics.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Arturo Frondizi' Start a new discussion about 'Arturo Frondizi' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Arturo Frondizi (October 28, 1908 - April 18, 1995) was the President of Argentina between 1 May 1958 and 29 March 1962 for the Intransigent Radical Civic Union.
Biography
Frondizi was born in Paso de los Libres, Corrientes Province to immigrant parents from Umbria, Italy. They lived in Concepción del Uruguay, Entre Rios, and in Buenos Aires and Arturo had ten brothers including Silvio, who became a lawyer and was assassinated in 1974 by the Triple A, and Risieri who became a philosopher and rector of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA).
Frondizi graduated from the UBA Law School with honors in 1930 and entered politics. He was elected to the Argentine Chamber of Deputies in 1946 and stood for Vice President on Ricardo Balbin's Radical Civic Union (UCR) ticket for the 1951 elections, which they lost overwhelmingly to incumbent President Juan Peron. Parting ways with Balbin, he formed an "intransigent" wing of the Radical Party, defeating the more conservative and anti-Peronist Ricardo Balbín in his party's 1957 primaries. Enjoying support from Peronist Party voters (whose party had been banned by outgoing President Pedro Aramburu), Frondizi won, becoming president in May 1958. Frondizi's term in office was marked by conservative and military interference over much domestic and international policy, leading to harsh 1959 austerity measures which caused civil unrest.
Better able to maneuver after the 1959 recession, his economic policies (known as desarrollismo — "developmentalism") had paid off by 1961 and he enjoyed broad support from Argentina's large middle class. He attempted to lift the electoral ban on the Peronist party and met with Che Guevara and Fidel Castro in an attempt to mediate their dispute with the United States. This led the military to withdraw their grudging support.
Peronists, for their part, feared a communist coup and sided with the military. Matters came to a head during the Cuban Missile Crisis when communist elements and radical leftists within his own coalition began demanding action in support of Cuba. Frondizi stayed neutral and on March 28, 1962, while at a Pan American summit, he was deposed by a coup d'état.
The Developmentalist Economic Plan
Introduction
Frondizi sought to strengthen the economy by solving the main economic problems that had haunted Argentina over the last twenty years. Some of these main problems were the insufficiency in oil production, 60% of the oil had to be imported and 80% of all the oil was used to generate electricity, the small steel production, the lack of electricity and the insufficiency and obsolescence of transport (especially railways). Many of the economic problems that the country had when Frondizi came into office were inheritited from Perón's 1946-55 administration, particularly that of the budget deficits caused by the huge railroad subsidies during this period. These subsidies alone cost the treasury a million dollars a day and in fact, much of the US$1.7 billion in reserves Perón had inherited were used to purchase the various private railway companies from French and British interests. The panoply of nationalized companies were modernized and expanded, but were also left with bloated payrolls that had strained national budgets since.
On taking office, Frondizi called on economist Rogelio Frigerio to institute a bold plan to make Argentina self-sufficient in motor vehicles and petroleum, as well as to quickly extend the country's semi-developed road and electric networks (that, in the '50s, reached less than half the population and fewer than 20% in the poorer north). Frondizi's economic vision was a radical departure the nationalist one pursued early on by Perón, though as a young congressman he supported them. (See the Declaration of Avellaneda) Frigerio put Frondizi's vision into practice by sanctioning a key law: the Law of Foreign Investment. This law gave the same incentives, especially tax benefits, that local companies had to foreign corporations and created the Department and Commission of Foreign Investments, which was designed to give foreign investors more legal recourse. Frigerio's plans were ambitious, calling for greatly expanded public lending for homebuilders and local industry, public works investments to outdo even Peron's—aside from counting on a wave of foreign investment in the oil and auto sectors.
One major obstacle was the military, whose upper echelons were larded with men from Argentina's old agricultural elites (many of whom were ultraconservative and had well-documented racist, anti-Semitic attitudes and Fascist ties). The generals, therefore, objected to Frigerio and imposed one of their own on the president—defense contractor Alvaro Alsogaray.
Ignored by Frondizi as long as possible, Alsogaray finally forced his austerity "shock treatment" on the president in December, 1958. Sharply devaluing the currency, curtailing Frigerio's lending programs and shredding subsidies and other social programs, the perennially TV conscious Alsogaray apperared before viewers and armed with pie charts, he infamouly declared that Argentines "must go through winter."
The measures forced consumer prices to double in less than year (the country had been used to 20-30%) and hammered real wages and business investment both, which fell by about 20%. The 1959 recession, however, allowed Frondizi to marginalize Alsogaray in favor of Rogelio Frigerio and the former eventually resigned. Frigerio revived the suffering loan, public works and social programs and benefitting from his earlier measures, automakers (most of whom were subsidiaries of U.S. and European firms and in partnership with Argentine investors) primed production from 30,000 units in 1958 (60% of the market) to 135,000 by 1961, making Argentina a self-sufficient auto market.
The oil problem
The development of Argentina's sizable petroleum reserves had played a key role in Argentine politics since the formation of the state oil concern YPF in 1922 and, as well as becoming critical to industrialization, it soon became a tool to create a feeling of nationalism among the population.
When Frondizi came into office in 1958 the oil production had not grown significantly since the sometimes abusive Standard Oil was forced out in the 1930s and as Argentina became more motorized, oil imports were soon the country leading drain of foreign exchange. A contentious issue by the 1940s, the UCR (Radical Civic Union) favoured a state monopoly, which they felt was the only way to maintain control on the oil reserves. In the Declaration of Avellaneda (later the common platform shared by Balbin's UCRP—his wing of the UCR—and Frondizi's UCRI) the state's need to invest in oil exploration and to make Argentina self sufficient in the short term became policy. As the Declaration of Avellaneda mentioned these ends but not the means, this statement was later used by Frondizi to justify the use of foreign investment.
During Frondizi's administration, in summary, foreign investment was most encouraged into the sectors creating most of the trade deficits so chronic to the Argentine economy between 1949 and 1962. Indeed, 90% of all foreign investment during his term went into oil exploration, oil refineries, the auto industry, steel and household durables. 10 of the 25 greatest projects went into the exploration of new oil fields and by 1961, self-sufficiency was achieved, freeing hundreds of millions of dollars yearly and helping lead to thirteen years of nearly uninterrupted growth, particularly in industry.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure had been the object of growing public investment since 1920; but, where Argentina's educational and health network had grown into the most extensive ones in Latin America, the road network and public transport had changed little since 1940s; although it managed to breathe new life into important highway projects, the Frondizi administration accomplished less than it had set out to.
Many of the projects mentioned required an enormous amount of finance, money which the administration did not have. To be able to finish these "monumental" projects, Frondizi's plan called on a combination of foreign and state investment. Frondizi prioritized electricity and directed then-record resources into hydroelectric dams. The two main hydroelectric dams in discussion were “El Chocón”, in the border with Chile and Salto Grande in the border with Uruguay. The "feasibility studies" for both these projects was already done in Yrigoyen's first presidency (1916-1922) but they were never put into practice. These projects would meet the increasing demand for electricity, replacing the oil powered generators; as well as bringing regional integration with Chile and Uruguay. Although none of these projects was entirely finished during Frondizi's presidency, both of them were eventually finished because this administration not only started with the construction itself, agreed on economic cooperation.
Public transport, however, did not improve, as the administration prioritized growth in the auto industry. Trains continued to remain in the hands of the state and their service continued to deteriorate, gradually. Figures of public transport are scarce, but during Frondizi's administration no new subway or train stations were built or improved.
In general, under this administration important projects were started, especially the ones involved with the generation of electricity, but public transport remained poor.
Conclusion
During Frondizi's administration the country experienced an important economic transition. The policy of Developmentalism brought with it foreign investment in underdeveloped industries like petrochemicals, the auto industry and steel and helped usher in over a decade of relative prosperity. Although some important projects were started there was, however, no unified policy towards infrastructure, which did not dramatically improve.
Frondizi's economic vision can be summarized as progressive, since it defeated long-held fears of economic development among many in Argentina. Although some aspects of the economy, especially heavy industry, were improved, Frondizi's administration failed to improve other important aspects such as public transport and agriculture.
Some of the problems that the administration was unable to solve dated from Perón's presidency, as discussed. Due to the enormous opposition to the privatisation of state-owned companies, some key sectors in which foreign investment could have arguably made a great difference—telecommunications, in particular—continued to grow very slowly. Perón's influence on public opinion, particularly on that of working class Argentines, was partially responsible for this problem.
The social aspect
Introduction
During the developmentarism years, Frondizi set out to change the social aspect of the government in comparison with the previous military government and Perón. The idea of separating trade unions and state, as this could break the Peronist control over them, can be considered progressive. As Perón always said the trade unions were the "backbone of the Peronist movement". With this he meant that trade unions were the main element to control the masses. The benefits that these unions offer to their members were much higher than other trade unions since they used money from the government to obtain such benefits. Trade union leaders were extremely loyal to Perón, partially due to gratitude, but mostly because of the power they were given over the trade unions. After Perón's fall this loyalty continued intact. Perón in exile still had control over his movement and over the trade unions. The new peronism that emerged, called "resistance Peronism", was based on strikes and violent manifestations of the trade unions against the state. The main objective was to destabilize any government that was not Peronist. Even though Perón had an agreement with Frondizi, his developmentarist economic plan quickly destroyed their temporary friendship. The constant resistance of the organised working class is one of the key aspects that brought his downfall.
Although in theory, Frondizi's administration wanted to avoid state intervention, and encourage a progressive social policy, it failed to avoid intervening in the trade unions. Many aspects of the trade unions were inherited from Perón's system, to change it Frondizi was forced to ensure control of the trade unions by issuing a new law. This control would cause serious problems with the trade unions.
Education was another aspect which can be seen as controversial. Frondizi's administration not only changed the curriculum but also opened education to the private sector. To understand the relevance of this change we need to go back to the Peronist legacy. During Perón's presidency the curriculum was changed to contain Peronist ideology. Even though most if it was removed by the previous military government, there were still some vestiges, such as youth organizations. The opening of education to the private sector is sometimes seen as either progressive or pro-clerical.
The government and its relationship with the work force
After the fall of the Peronist regime in 1955 its vital structure, the CGT (Confederación General del Trabajo -General Work Conferedation-, union of all trade unions) came under restriction from the military government. This clearly anti-Peronist action would eventually lead to massive strikes and other types of resistance from the working force. At the time Frondizi's position against the military government and in favour of a united trade union (Frondizi was the only non-Peronist politician who favoured this option) made the trade unions sympathetic to him. When Frondizi took office in 1958 there were three groups of trade unions.
When Frondizi took power he fulfilled his promise of maintaining an all-united CGT. This idea was fiercely opposed by the 32s and 19s since one centralized trade union would mean, in practice, that the workers movement would be controlled by the Peronists. The government faced two options, one was an election in which the proportional representation system was used; the other option was an electoral system which hand control of the trade unions to the majority (Peronist). To satisfy Peronist demands and avoid short term conflict, the trade unions control was given to the majority. Nevertheless, during 1958 the 62s supported the government and tried to reduce any working conflict. On the other hand the 19s and the 32s opposed the government by encouraging strikes and other workers' demonstrations. In the context of Economy Minister Alsogaray's "shock treatment" and ensuing inflation, the contracts that had been frozen by law in 1958 meant that the real salaries, which already had been falling since Perón's fall in 1955, fell even further (see Appendix A, Fig. 1).
During 1959 the situation dramatically changed. The government issued Law 9270/56 of Professional Association which defined the relationship between state, employers and trade unions. This law among other things, allowed the state to intervene in the trade unions when it considered it necessary, by the use of force. The new law alarmed the Peronists since it undermined their control over the trade unions. It also represented a threat to the so called democratic trade unions (non Peronist) since this law also stated that the majority would control the central trade union (CGT).
Educational Reforms
After the university reform of 1918 Argentine education, especially at university level, became totally independent of the government. It was considered, by that time, an excellent system which maintained education in a progressive movement (meaning that it was always evolving). The education was also non-religious. When Frondizi came into power he intended to promote the law called "free education." This law, proposed by the government, would allow the establishment of private universities as well as fund private schools. Before this new law private universities could not issue official titles, they needed to arrange it with a public university. The confrontation behind this new law occurred because most of the new universities, and private schools which were going to be funded by the state, were religious. The people which were in favour of a non religious education said that the law meant a concession given to the church in exchange for support. When Frondizi’s administration allowed private universities to co-exist with public ones, it was seen as a progressive measure. Nevertheless funding private institutions was intended to fund the church institutions more than others. This of course, was part of a previous agreement between the church and the government.
Conclusion
The social aspect of Frondizi's government is a quite obscure aspect, and indeed it is hard to identify which measures were taken by his own initiative rather than by external pressure. This section has identified two key aspects of its policy; the treatment of workers' movements, and cultural aspects such as education. Although some of the measures taken can be understood as part of a progressive movement, most of them are in fact conservative, since their intent was to maintain the status quo established by the previous military government. To illustrate the point we can mention that progressive measures were, the restoration of the CGT to trade union members and the opening of education to the private sector. On the other hand we have the non-progressive measures, such as financing religious education, intervening the trade unions when needed, and use of martial law and imprisonment of trade union leaders, which began soon after Frondizi came into office. Most of the measures in the second category were responses to pressure from anti-Peronist elements in the society, especially from the arm forces. Others, such as aiding religious education, were a response to the need for support from conservative groups, such as the Church, which still had a great influence on the majority of the society. Summarizing the social policies carried out by Frondizi's administration it could be said that overall it was not a progressive one; but, rather one careful to abide by conservative interests.
Appraisal of the Frondizi years
In the case of the economic aspect this article has discussed that Frondizi’s administration tried and partially succeeded, in changing various aspects of the economy. These changes can be defined as progressive. This is clearly seen in the opening of the local market to foreign investment. As discussed, Frondizi finished the isolationist economic policy that had been encouraged by Perón and started a campaign to encourage foreign investment. The results are of key importance: Self sufficiency was achieved in oil production, a new petrochemical industry created, important hydroelectric plants such as Salto Grande were built, among other things. Other aspects of the economy were also improved, for example, the money spent by the state was reduced, particularly by dismantling the internal structure of public employers set up by Perón. Some aspects of the infrastructure and agriculture were not given the necessary support from the government; nevertheless this was probably due to a lack of time and the focusing of the government on higher priority tasks. Although there were some problems in the economy, such as an increase in unemployment (as a result of improvement of technology in production, and the need for skilled workforce) or the lowering of real salaries.
In the case of the social aspect, although the government did propose some progressive measures, the overall social policy can be considered as conservative. This supposed conservatism in the social aspect is mostly due to the Peronist legacy as previously pointed out. To illustrate, we can refer to the treatment of trade unions and the repression of the workforce. As explored during this essay, trade unions remained restricted until 1961, martial law was introduced to allow the state to avoid any riots or strikes. The unconditional loyalty of trade union members towards Perón, and the Peronist ideology which had been successfully introduced in the workforce avoided any possibility of appeasement with the above mentioned sectors. Even though restriction was probably the only option, these policies cannot be considered progressive, in fact they were conservative since their intent was to maintain the status quo.
Finally it is of key importance to understand the limitations of this essay, which only considers a few (the most important) of the policies and measures of Frondizi’s administration. This means that various aspects of the government, such as party politics, could not be explored, and those explored were only focused on briefly rather than in depth.
Overall Frondizi was, to some degree, a progressive and modern politician. His radical change in the economic plan can also be considered progressive, although the progress being made was obscured by the need to comply with military and anti-Peronist demands. Frondizi had a very brief period of time in office, nevertheless he managed to change important aspects of the country, His acts can be summarized with what president Raúl Alfonsín said about his own presidency twenty five years later: "We wanted, we had the resources, but we only accomplished part of our plan".
See also
External links
|
| |
|
|
