Spouses of The Presidents of Argentina - History of The Office of Head of State

History of The Office of Head of State

The origins of Argentina as a nation can be traced to 1776, when it was separated by the Spanish King from the existing Viceroyalty of Peru, creating the new Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. The Head of State continued to be the King, but he was represented locally by the Viceroy. These Viceroys were seldom natives of the country.

By the May Revolution of May 25, 1810, the first Argentine autonomous government, known as the Primera Junta, was formed in Buenos Aires. It was later known as the Junta Grande when representatives from the provinces joined. These early attempts of self-government were succeeded by two Triumvirates and, although the first juntas had presidents, the King of Spain was still regarded as Head of State (as independence had not yet been declared), and the executive power was still not in the hands of a single person.

This power was vested in one man when the position of Supreme Director was created by the 1813 National Assembly. The Supreme Directors became Heads of State after Independence was declared on 9 July 1816, but there was not yet truly a presidential system.

In 1819, Congress declared Independence and composed a Constitution. This established an executive figure, named Supreme Director, who was vested with presidential powers. This constitution gave the Supreme Director the power of appointing Governors of the provinces. Due to political circumstances, this constitution never came into force, and the central power was dissolved, leaving the country as a federation of provinces.

A new constitution was drafted in 1826. This constitution was the first to create a President, although this office retained the powers described in the 1819 constitution. This constitution did come into force, resulting in the election of the first President, Bernardino Rivadavia. Because of the Cisplatine War, Rivadavia resigned after a short time, and the office was dissolved shortly after.

A civil war between unitarios (unitarians, i.e. Buenos Aires centralists) and federales (federalists) ensued in the following decades. In this time, there was no central authority, and the closest to that was the Chairman of Foreign Relations, typically the Governor of the Province of Buenos Aires. The last to bear this title was Juan Manuel de Rosas, who in the last years of his governorship was elected Supreme Chief of the Confederation, gaining effective rule of the rest of the country.

In 1852, Rosas was deposed, and a constitutional convention was summoned. This constitution, still in force, established a national federal government, with the office of the President. The term was fixed as six years, with no possibility of reelection. The first elected President under the constitution was Justo José de Urquiza, but Buenos Aires seceded from the Argentine Confederation as the State of Buenos Aires. Bartolomé Mitre was the first president of the unified country, when Buenos Aires rejoined the Confederation. Thus, Rivadavia, Urquiza and Mitre and considered the first presidents of Argentina by different historians: Rivadavia for being the first one to use the title, Urquiza for being the first one to rule under the 1853 constitution, and Mitre for being the first president of Argentina under its current national limits.

In 1930, and again in 1943, 1955, 1962, 1966 and 1976, military coups deposed elected Presidents. In 1966 and 1976, federal government was undertaken by a military junta, where power was shared by the chiefs of the armed forces. In 1962, the President of the Senate ruled, but in the other cases, a military chief assumed the title of President.

It is debatable whether these military presidents can properly be called Presidents, as there are issues with the legitimacy of their governments. The position of the current Argentine government is that military Presidents Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri and Jorge Rafael Videla were explicitly not legitimate presidents. They, and their immediate successors were denied the right to a presidential pension after the conclusion of their terms. The status of earlier military presidents, however, remains more uncertain.