Hipólito Yrigoyen
Hipólito Yrigoyen | |
|---|---|
Yrigoyen, c. 1920s | |
| 19th & 21st President of Argentina | |
| In office 12 October 1928 – 6 September 1930 | |
| Vice President | Enrique Martínez |
| Preceded by | Marcelo Torcuato de Alvear |
| Succeeded by | José Félix Uriburu (de facto) |
| In office 12 October 1916 – 11 October 1922 | |
| Vice President | Pelagio Luna |
| Preceded by | Victorino de la Plaza |
| Succeeded by | Marcelo Torcuato de Alvear |
| Personal details | |
| Born | 12 July 1852 Buenos Aires, Argentina |
| Died | 3 July 1933 (aged 80) Buenos Aires, Argentina |
| Resting place | La Recoleta Cemetery |
| Political party | Radical Civic Union (1891–1933) |
| Other political affiliations | Civic Union (1890–1891) |
| Signature | |
Juan Hipólito del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús Yrigoyen (12 July 1852 – 3 July 1933) was an Argentine politician of the Radical Civic Union who served as President of Argentina from 1916 to 1922 and again from 1928 until his overthrow in 1930. He was the first president elected democratically by means of the secret and mandatory male suffrage established by the Sáenz Peña Law of 1912. His activism was the prime impetus behind the passage of that law in Argentina.
Known as "the father of the poor", Yrigoyen presided over a rise in the standard of living of Argentina's working class together with the passage of a number of progressive social reforms, including improvements in factory conditions, regulation of working hours, compulsory pensions, and the introduction of a universally accessible public education system. Yrigoyen was the first nationalist president, convinced that the country had to manage its own currency and, above all, it should have control of its transportation and its energy and oil exploitation networks.
Between the 1916 general election and the 1930 coup d'état, political polarization was on the rise. Personalist radicalism was presented as the "authentic expression of the nation and the people" against the "oligarchic and conservative regime". For the ruling party, the will of the majorities prevailed over the division of powers. The opposition, on the other hand, accused the Executive Branch of being arrogant and demanded greater participation from Congress, especially in matters such as the conflictive federal interventions.