Martha Hinrichs

HL History B 1.2

2 March 2010

Vargas – Perón Comparison

Getúlio Vargas and Juan Perón were both single-party leaders in South America in the 20th

century. Getúlio Vargas was twice the president of Brazil, from November 3, 1930 to October

29, 1945 and from January 31, 1951 to August 24, 1954. Juan Perón was likewise twice the

president of Argentina, from June 4, 1946 to September 21, 1955, and from October 12, 1973

to July 1, 1974, however only Perón’s first stint as President will be assessed in this

comparison paper.

In order to compare the relative successes of the two leaders, a working definition of

success must be established. Success implies the achievement of a deliberate set of objectives.

The success of a politician can address one of two targets: either the politician’s ability to

remain in power (be it through re-election or military might), or the politician’s ability to

follow through with claims and improve his nation.

In answer to the first perspective of success, neither Vargas nor Perón can be considered

truly successful. Both came to power through military efforts, but on the other hand, both won

legitimate elections at one point in their political careers. However, neither Perón nor Vargas

came to a peaceful end to his leadership. Although he would later be elected in the seventies,

Perón was arrested and forced into exile in Paraguay in August of 1955 after the death of his

popular wife and disorderly riots between his supporters and detractors threatened to send

Argentina into chaos. In Vargas’s second term as President of Brazil, a severe recession and

the unraveling of his coalition in Congress, coupled with his likely removal by the military in

1954 led Vargas to commit suicide. Ultimately, both leaders lost control of the political
situation in their countries, and cannot be considered successful in this aspect.

The second method of determining success is not as easily concluded. This category of

success may itself be divided into two sub-categories: the accomplishment of one’s aims, and

the accomplishment of what is best for the nation. First, Perón and Vargas’s promises must be

compared with their policies. Next, their policies will be evaluated for efficacy in bettering

their nation.

Getúlio Vargas came to power “on the crest of the revolution of 1930,” (Sodre) and was

originally a wealthy pro-industrial nationalist and anti-communist who favored capitalist

development and liberal reforms. As a candidate in the 1930 presidential elections before the

revolution, Vargas used populist rhetoric to promote bourgeois concerns and opposed the

dominance, but not the legitimacy, of the coffee oligarchy and the landed elites. During this

period the landed elites had little interest in protecting and promoting industry and

modernization, while Vargas sought to bring Brazil out of the Great Depression through

conventional, state-interventionist policies.

Juan Perón led a coup against the Castillo administration in Argentina in 1943, but

steered the coup towards a populist government instead of a fascist regime. Nevertheless, both

Perón and Vargas can be considered quasi-fascist and emulated some of Mussolini's strategy by

mediating class disputes and co-opting workers' demands under the banner of nationalism.

Perón’s initial rise to power was based on support from the union leaders and the working

class, as he offered them higher wages, contract enforcement, benefits, and relief from

antiunion actions by employers. Another aim of Perón’s was to improve the economy through

“import substitution industrialization” (ISI). Perón also had international aims to remain

neutral during the Cold War.

Both leaders were forced to deal with the worldwide depression as well as national crises
in their own nations. Thus economic issues were of main concern in both cases. Perón

planned to “provide for minimum wages for industry and farm laborers, for retirement or

pension systems, for reorganization of the university system, for the establishment of trade or

technical schools, for the public ownership of electric power, for the building of dams, for the

construction of a pipe line from the oil fields in eastern Chubut to Buenos Aires, for the

construction of roads, and for the colonization of immigrants” (Taylor). For Vargas, according

to Keen, the Great Depression did not create Brazilian industrialization, but it created the

conditions for a new advance. Beginning as a spontaneous response to the loss of import

capacity that resulted form the catastrophic decline of exports and a falling rate of exchange,

industrialization received a fresh impetus from the Vargas policies. He encouraged industry

through exchange controls, import quotas, tax incentives, lowered duties on imported

machinery and raw materials, and long-term loans at low interest rates.

In terms of success, Perón’s ISI program made progress for several years without

financial difficulties, and everyone besides ranchers and farmers seemed to benefit. The share

wages took of national income rising from 46 to 57 percent drove factory expansion. However,

a number of factors caused the boom to falter in 1949. A drought cut Argentine production

about the same time that European grain harvests began to satisfy domestic demand, and

Argentina experienced food shortages (Clayton). With his wife Eva at the head of the

campaign, Perón saw women gain suffrage during his presidency.

But soon after reelection in 1951, Perón began to oppose labor strikes and wage

increases, and invited foreign investors to exploit natural resources, which was his major

failure in hindsight. The workers felt betrayed, and coupled with the death of his popular wife,

Perón’s leadership began to crumble. Perón also picked a fight with the Catholic Church and

consequently lost their support. This decline ended in Perón’s exile to Paraguay. Overall, the
earlier parts of his leadership were successful in the areas of social reform, and economic

reform was shallowly successful.

The leadership of Vargas is marked by the transformation from a traditional leader to a

dictator to a populist (Clayton). The Vargas dictatorship was a period of exuberance and

progress. A progressive labor code was enacted in 1943 that helped to prevent the ruthless

exploitation of workers in the urban industries. The government initiated many public works of

lasting benefit and encouraged the expansion of Brazil's important steel industry at Volta

Redonda. With the help of U.S. loans Vargas bargained successfully and the steel production

remained in Brazilian hands. Brazil declared war in the Axis in 1942, and during the Second

World War many other industries (notably the manufacture of textiles, paper, and chemicals)

expanded enormously (Pendle). Under Vargas there was a substantial improvement in

education, which was achieved by strengthening federal authority at the expense of the

provincial states. Medical services were also substantially improved.

In 1945, after the reputation he had gained during the Estado Novo period had faded,

Vargas was forced to resign by the army. This was mostly due to the popular dislike of

dictatorship and the yearning for constitutionality. He was later elected in 1950 in a free

election, but as was previously mentioned, he committed suicide in 1954. However, during

this second term, Vargas tried very seriously to carry out his promises to the masses, especially

regarding protection of natural resources, economic planning, and a fair distribution of wealth.

His bill to nationalize electric utilities failed, but not due to lack of effort on his part. In all,

Vargas’s second administration produced “some major social progress, yet in a climate of

heightened political and economic conflict,” (Clayton) leading to the unraveling of his

government.

In terms of popularity, Vargas is more successful because his suicide note actually gained
sympathy for him and turned him into a martyr (Clayton). On the other hand, the government

of the Peróns (Juan and his wife, Eva or Evita) enjoyed tremendous popularity due to their

charismatic personalities. This was unfortunate for Juan Perón as he lost much of his

popularity in the years following Eva’s death. Both leaders used dictatorial methods to achieve

the outcomes they believed would serve their nation best. As mentioned, both leaders

accomplished many reforms, both social and economic, during their periods of leadership, and

determining which country benefitted more from its respective leader is not obvious.

In the realm of economic reform, Perón’s ISI ultimately caused problems and his reversal

of policy in his second term indicate inferiority to Vargas’s grounded policies of

nationalization. Vargas was particularly successful in gaining a steel mill from the U.S. in

exchange for a military base. In terms of social reform, both leaders saw women and workers

gain more rights and representation, but Perón’s abandonment of his reformist policies towards

labor union and the proletariat during his second term once again proves his inferiority to

Vargas’s more even policies. Ultimately, Getúlio Vargas was a more successful leader as

President of Brazil.