Competitive Debate.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 29 May 1914, Page 2

Competitive Debate.

LEVIN v. SHANNON

Oil Wednesday evening a bate took place in the Taieri Tea .Rooms between representatives of the Shannon Debating Society and tlie Levin Debating Society. Tiie subject for debate was "That an autocratic form of Government is preferable in the public interest to a democratic form." Shannon (the negative) was represented by Messrs Selby, Hensman, and the llev. J. A. McKenziej Levin (the affirmative) was represented by Messrs C. B. Easther, A. J. Harding and Kev. A. (J. llanderson. Mr W. S. Park was judge, and Ml* J. Robertson occupied the chair. Mr Easther, in opening for the affirmative, said that autocracy must not be confused with despotism, which stood for all that was bad, and which ruled through fear. It was government by the few for the benefit of the few. Autocracy meant the government of the people for the benefit of the people. The human race was divided into two classes —a few were fit to govern and the great majority were only fit to be governed. Autocracy laid down no particular law by which nations were to be governed. The

the monarch was ery State the Divine right of kings, M.i<i serfdom was a concomitant <4#* cumstance. No . individual or class was fit tt> control people for any length-.of time. The late Sir Henry Oampbell-Bknnerman had said that self-government was better than good'government. Uniil proportional representation pre* vailed they must have majority rule. Under -the proportional system the:-minority would have a voice and the government would be compelled to ascertain the wants >f the. people. „ Mr Harding, for the affirmative, said-that under democracy men ofability were prevented from serving the people. Pontius Pilate —an autocrat —was willing to' release Jesus Christ, but the multitude (democracy) howled for his death. According to democrats, the Hon. W. Massey would never see Parliament again after next election. This would" be a loss to New Zealand. Democracy fostered the professional politician. A plethora of parties sprang up and the people did not know where ihey were. It encouraged political patronage. This would always obtain, but under democracy it meant that thousands would live on the public. Mr Hensman said that an autocrat had likened his rule to that of a shepherd tending his flock. He could have carried the likeness further—to include the operation of shearing when the fleece was taken. The conditions to-day would not permit of autocratic rule. Autocracy meant that the people were steeped in ignorance and superstition. Democracy .;aine in with education and went forward with education. At present, the many had a right to rule because all had education and could take part in making the laws. All examples of. modern times were against autocracy. Under it Lincoln and Garfieid would have had no chance. People could not work from the bottom to the top. Rev. A. C. Randerson, for the affirmative, said that there was something in human nature that fended to bring those fitted to rule to the top. If all men had equal wisdom universal suffrage would be all right. The fatal fault with democracy was that the vote of the wise was only the same value as that of tlie ignorant. Under it the fear of popular passions kept a man down and reform was kept back through fear of the mob. There was no room for individuality in democracy; it was the greatest despotism that had ever appeared in history. Autocracy sometimes checked the people's aspirations, but that was to save them from soaring to 'destruction. With democracy the minority, which was often the wisest, was ruled by the many. Rev. J. A. McKenzie (who was allowed five minutes' extra to include his reply) remarked that they were not speaking of democracy as they found it at present, but for the practical possibilities '•that were in it. .They believed m it for its educational power. At present in the last resource the Government relied on the sword, but the day would come when people, would be atle to govern themselves. Autocracy curtailed people's aspirations and ambitions; they would not be allowed to grow up and would always remain in a state of pupilage. It was too much to ask them to believe that the best always came to the top under autocracy and always the worst under democracy. Democracy would educate the people to the need of controlling themselves; they would learn their own mistakes and would become wise by their own inflicted sufferings. Rev. Mr Randerson, m reply, said that they were dealing with things as they were—they weie on solid ground—not soaring. They now saw the germ of democracy (which did not at first reveal itself) coming into view m form for strikes. They still had ignorant and superstitious people in this country after years of education. There are people who will not and cannot exercise their vote wisely. Mr W. S. Park, in summing up, said that he was disappointed in that the terms of democracy and autocracy had not been defined or a line of demarcation drawn beiwpi'i! ■ two. On the mprits of the not on the question at issue—he it worded Shannon 219 points and'Mjoviu 214. Rev. Mr Kinder,sen 'tha-iiiutl the visitors for coining li. L.'vm. He was glad they had won lie hoped Levin would h 1 Vbi'c lo reverse the verdict when ii.oy visited Shannon. . '' , Rev. J. A. McKcn/ic . iked the Levin Debating their kind welcome. Lovhr find a good welcome at Slsaimoii Votes of thanks to Mr W. S. Park (judge) and Mr J. Jxolkt'-' son, M.P., concluded the proceedings.