DICTATORSHIP OR DEMOCRACY?

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20920, 29 July 1933, Page 12

DICTATORSHIP OR DEMOCRACY?

EVILS OF PARTY SYSTEM

OTAGO AND CANTERBURY STUDENTS' DEBATE. ! The annual debate between the comI merce students of Otago University and of Canterbury College was held last night at Canterbury College. The Otago University Commerce Students' ! Society was represented by Messrs W. S. Gilkison. R. J. Cook, and R. E. Guthrie, and I lie Canterbury College Society by M?ssrs C. F. Jones. D. W. Woodward, and L. L. Smith. Mr J. A. Henry acted as chairman, and Mr W. R. Lascelles as judge. The subject of the debate was "That a Dictatorship in New Zealand would be Preferable to Democratic Government as under the Present. Party System." Otago took the affirmative. Far a Dictatorship. Mr Gilkinson. opening the debate (or Otago, said that lie was not concerned with the means by which a dictators-hip might come into being in ihis country; he wished to show that, given a dictatorship. Hip community j would be better off than, under the i present system. Some held that. I democracy was a thing to strive for, but actually the form of government was subservient to the most advantageous ruling of the country. The functions of government were internal organisation, and the management of international affairs. It was therefore neeessarv that the governing | power should be stable, and that rt i should have an element of continuity. j Promptness of action and decisiveness were also necessary.. Here the dic- ! tator had the advantage. Another \ need was. for a form of leadership ' which would inspire confidence, and ■ such power belonged to a dictator. Plea for Democracy. I Mr CF. -Tones, leading for the nega- ! live. put. forward arguments against i dictatorship and in favour of democr;rv. niclatorship. he declared, was direcl.lv opposed to democracy, and he i could not conceive of a freedom-loving people submitting to the tyranny of ' autocratic government. Dictatorship was a form of militarism, for a dictator without, his army was; a wolf without [angs. Parliamentary procedure on the other hand, had justified itself bv past successes. A party in parliament represented a definite class of the community, and though admittedly the partv system had not always produced government of a very high standard, that was the fault of the people whom the party represented. Mr Cook held that the member elected to parliament under the present svslem was not free to express himself and vote as he wished. He was tied by his constituency and by his" pa-ty. Parliamentary rule consist eu "in lovalty to a party-a very poor substitute for loyalty to conviction He advanced arguments .lustifving dictatorship on - ounds of economv. efficiency, the definite Placms of responsibility, and the moral effect of inspiring leadership. Mr Woodward emphasised the effect of a dictatorship in "ashing down the rights and privileges which the people had gained by centuries of struggle. Under the present system the people had the privilege of being represented by members whom they know pcrr.onallv and on whom they could rely. The cost of a dictator's army would far exceed the present cost of government; and a dictatorship would have a bad influence on trade and the financial credit of the country, on the freedom of the press, and on the educational system. A dictator would enjov indeterminate powers, and a dictatorship, on account of its unconstiUitiona! nature would make membership of the British Empire impossible for us. Big Leaders in History. Mi Guthrie supported dictatorship by reference to history. Julius Caesar had done much for the greatness of the Roman Empire; Cromwell had raised the status of England; Napoleon had brought order out of the chaos of the French Revolution and had left lasting benefits to his country; and Mussolini had raised Italy from the status of a small power to that of a great nation. In the present crisis the firm rule of a dictator was needed. Mr Smith replied with criticism of the dictatorships of the past. Roosevelt's attempt to bring about a dictatorship had failed ignominously. Democracy, on the other hand, had proved satisfactory. He reiterated that a dictator could hold office only by force; and he argued that a dictator, not being omniscient, had to consult advisors, thus giving opportunities for the evils of private interest. After the summing-up by the respective leaders, Mr W. R. Lascelles said that the contest had been very close, Canterbury winning by 134 points to 132. Points had been given for matter, delivery, arrangement, and team-work. He considered that the debate was of good average standard. He placed the best, speakers in the following order: Mr Jones first, Messrs Gilkison and Guthrie' (equal) second. Members of the Otago team arrived in Christchurch last night, and will leave for Dunedin to-day.