Among Hispanic American nations Uruguay is unique in many respects, but most notably for its advanced social welfare system, its governmental stability, its workable political democracy, and its enviable high standard of living. Also it has sought to avoid strong man rule through experimentation with a plural executive branch of government. Through most of the nineteenth century, however, the country’s history was characterized by long periods of internal strife and chaos. During the first years of the twentieth century José Batlle y Ordóñez, twice president of Uruguay, brought about reforms to create a prosperous and well-governed republic. Among other things, he nationalized some industries and utilities, reduced the secular role of the Church, insured honest elections, and created a laudable system of social security.
The success of Batlle’s reforms can best be measured by the peace and prosperity which have characterized Uruguay’s history in the present century—a pleasant contrast to the previous chaos. Nevertheless, the agrarian utopia again faces troubled times. By popular choice the plural executive has been abandoned; the extensive welfare system threatens to bankrupt the economy; and in the 1960s there have been increasing manifestations of the same discontent that has plagued the less fortunate nations of the hemisphere.
An understanding of Uruguay’s contemporary problems depends upon examining the career and philosophy of José Batlle y Ordóñez, who exerted such a fundamental influence in shaping the nation. One of the first investigations into his career appeared twenty-five years ago when Antonio M. Grompone, an Uruguayan philosopher, published a collection of essays analyzing Batlle’s philosophy. He illustrated the analyses with references to significant events in the nation’s history and with quotations from Battle’s writings. According to the author, Batlle’s ideology, when reduced to its simplest terms, stemmed from a struggle to achieve a governmental system that guaranteed liberty and justice in the economic, political, and social sectors.
The 1967 edition of Grompone’s book coincided with the recrudescence of unrest in Uruguay, so that it has been as relevant as a quarter of a century earlier. Although Grompone’s succinct analysis offers nothing that is not already well known about Uruguayan history, it merits the attention of scholars who hope to understand modern Uruguayan aspirations.
