THE PARTY SYSTEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22020, 1 August 1933, Page 2

THE PARTY SYSTEM

DICTATORSHIP OR DEMOCRACY? OTAGO AND CANTERBURY STUDENTS' DEBATE. The annual debate between the commerce students of Otago University and of Canterbury College was held on Friday last at Canterbury College. The Otago University Commerce Students' Society was represented by Messrs W. S. Gilkison, R. J. Cook, and R. E. Guthrie, and the Canterbury College Society by Messrs C. F. Jones, D. W. Woodward and L. L. Smith. Mr J. A. Henry acted as chairman, and Mr W. R. Laseelles 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. FOR A DICTATORSHIP. Mr Gilkison, opening the debate for Otago, said he was not concerned with the means by which a dictatorship might come into being in this country; he wished to show that, given a dictatorship, the community would be better off than under the present system. Some held that 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 necessary that the governing, power should be stable, and that it should have an element of continuity. Promptness of action and decisiveness were' also necessary. Here the dictator 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. Mr C. F. Jones, leading for the negative, put forward arguments against dictatorship and in favour of democracy. Dictatorship, he declared, was directly opposed to democracy, and he could not conceive of a freedom-loving people submitting to the tryanny of autocratic government. Dictatorship was a form of militarism, for a dictator without his army was a wolf Without fangs. Parliamentary procedure, on the other hand, had justified itself by past successes. A party in Parliament represented a definite class of the community, and though admittedly the party 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 system was not free to express himself and vote as he wished. He was tied by his constituency and by his party. Parliamentary rule consisted in loyalty to a party —a very poor substitute for loyalty to conviction. He advanced arguments justifying dictatorship on grounds of economy, efficiency, the definite placing of responsibility, and the moral effect of inspiring leadership. Mr Woodward emphasised the effect of a dictatorship in crashing 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 knew personally 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 enjoy indeterminate powers, and a dictatorship, on account of its unconstitutional nature, would make membership of the British Empire impossible for us. BIG LEADERS IN HISTORY. Mr Guthrie supported dictatorship by reference to history. Julius Cassar, he said, 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 ho argued that a dictator, not being omniscient, had to consult advisers, thus giving opportunities for the evils of private interest. After the summing-up by the respective leaders, Mr W. R. Laseelles 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 Guthrio (equal) second.