In the prologue to these volumes, the author, a professor of constitutional history at the Universidad Católica in Buenos Aires, proposes to write a constitutional and political history of Argentina which is objective, impartial, and accurate. With some qualifications, he goes far toward achieving this ambitious purpose.
In the first volume, which covers the years 1810 to 1860, Bidart Campos presents a straightforward and sometimes tedious summary of the basic historical details of this period and engages in some interesting analytical arguments. For example, he notes that underneath the evident political anarchy of the 1820s, there developed an intricate web of interprovincial agreements and particular governing documents which provided more political stability than is generally realized and served as important antecedents to the 1853 Constitution. Moreover, he takes to task Marxist analysts who claim that the 1853 Constitution reflected the needs and wishes of the dominant social class. He reminds the reader of the absence from the constituent assembly of representatives from the Province of Buenos Aires, which contained the bulk of Argentina’s wealth and wealthy in the nineteenth century. He also observes that the framers of the constitution came from Argentina’s poorest regions and by occupation seemed to represent a broad spectrum of socioeconomic interests. This last point, while suggestive, needs additional empirical support.
The second volume, which covers the period 1860 to 1977, is the weaker of the two. Unlike the first, it is almost wholly descriptive and summary, presenting little that is new or interpretative. Also, it stresses too strongly the strictly political, downplaying the constitutional questions which had formed the centerpiece of the first volume, making for a rather rough transition between the two.
The documentation is extensive and impressive, footnotes taking up about one-third of the volumes and covering a wide range of Argentine, European, and North American secondary literature. There are, however, some important omissions. The works of Peter Smith and David Rock are missing from the section which deals with radicalism, as is James Scobie’s main study of the period of national consolidation in the mid-nineteenth century. Most glaring is Bidart Campos’ failure to consider the monumental work of Tulio Halperín-Donghi on the revolutionary period.
In sum, these volumes do present a generally balanced and accurate, if somewhat narrow, introduction to Argentine political and constitutional development. However, the author’s commitment to objectivity, tinged occasionally with what might be called traditional liberal biases, produces a rather predictable narrative, with only a few surprises or insights. Hopefully, the projected third volume, which intends to deal with the political role of the armed forces and socioeconomic factors largely neglected in the works reviewed here, will serve to stimulate more fully the author’s analytical powers and the reader’s interest.