Only about ten years after it was abolished, we in Germany started talking about conscription again. The debate has been reignited after Defense Minister Boris Pistorius recently described the suspension of military service as a “mistake”. In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Pistorius underscored how the benefits of military service should be a subject of collective reflection.
There were numerous comments during the debate, for example from the military commissioner of the socialist Eva Högl, who called on the federal government to question whether some form of compulsory civilian service was necessary in order to remedy the shortage of personnel in the German ranks of the Bundeswehr. “We definitely need more personnel in the Bundeswehr,” Högl told the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung. In fact, army officers have recently complained about a shortage in numbers: over the past two decades, the Bundeswehr has been reduced from over 317,000 soldiers to just over 183,000.
Also, the head of the German Navy, Jan Christian Kaack, recently proposed a return to military service along the Norwegian model, under which men and women are called up for an examination at 19, with a small percentage of them (basically the most motivated) being drafted into the army. “I think this will bring a higher awareness to a nation that needs to become more resilient at times like this,” Kaack said.
The federal government and many of its representatives, who are particularly concerned about the issue, hastened to pour water on the fire. “All our forces must concentrate on strengthening the Bundeswehr as a highly professional army,” Finance Minister Christian Lindner told the Süddeutsche Zeitung, speaking of a “sham dispute”. Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit branded the discussion as “nonsensical”. The change in the Bundeswehr from a conscription to a professional army “cannot be reversed overnight”.
On the other hand, military service has been an elephant in the room for years for German society. For more than fifty years, from 1956 to 2011, men were forced to do some form of community service when they reached the age of 18; Those who did not want to do military service had the opportunity to do civilian service in civilian institutions such as hospitals or old people’s homes.
Both services were suspended under Angela Merkel’s government in 2011 with the aim of professionalizing the troops and downsizing the Bundeswehr. Now the Bundeswehr consists only of professional soldiers and long-standing contract troops.
However, there is still one clause that allows the state to conscript men into the Wehrmacht: It is Article Twelve of the German Basic Law, which states: “Men can be forced to serve in the Bundeswehr border or in a civil defense unit from the age of 18.” “.
However, the question does not seem to stop at Germany alone. Numerous politicians across Europe have long supported the reintroduction of conscription for reasons unrelated to military strategic importance. The romantic notion of conscription as the “school of the nation” underpins these narratives. The words of Matteo Salvini seem to be heard last August, when the leader of the Carroccio said that “the reintroduction of a year of military service could be very useful for our boys and girls”. In short, “a defining moment”.
When Pistorius spoke of an error, he unsurprisingly referred explicitly to the social acceptance of the armed forces in German society. “In those days there was a conscript in most families,” the minister explained. “So there was always a connection to civil society.” Referring to the attacks on firefighters and police officers, Pistorius said: “People seem to have lost consciousness of being part of the state and society. […] Taking responsibility for a period of time could be an eye-opener and an ear-opener.”
These are not innovative ideas, neither from a sociological nor from a military point of view. Until the fall of the Wall, a mass army was thought to have two advantages: it contributed to the security of Europe by deterring a land attack by the Red Army, and it helped educate citizens, especially young men, about the values of Europe bind a nation. However, over time, history and socioeconomic advances have increased the cost of conscription while reducing its benefits.
From a military point of view, the collapse of the USSR combined with the rise of international terrorism changed the nature of contemporary warfare, prompting European countries to focus on quality over quantity. Furthermore, as the so-called ‘knowledge-based economy’ has become central to Europe, the benefits of the scheme have diminished dramatically. For these reasons, since the early 1990s, the vast majority of countries have decided to end military service without public opposition.
Indeed, the studies of three Italian researchers (Vincenzo Bove, Riccardo Di Leo and Marco Giani) suggest that, far from increasing trust in democratic institutions, conscription could have the opposite effect. The Lever as we know it is an intense, long and engaging life experience taking place in an age of maximum education: it has the potential to direct the political socialization of each individual. By exposing young people to a military context that combines well-defined hierarchical dynamics, a shared set of values and rules, and a cohesive community, conscription policies appear to promote the primacy of the armed forces over distrusted democratic institutions.
This research shows that men who were drafted near the end of military service showed significantly and substantially less trust in institutions, politicians and parties than those who were exempt from service. The same effect is not observed for women of the same age cohort who were not directly affected by the conscription reform but were exposed to the same political context.
Although partly motivated by geopolitical concerns, the debate in Europe is mainly based on the idea that conscription can promote civic values in young people. The results challenge this thesis and suggest that politicians should explore other avenues of dialogue with younger generations.
Finally, reintroducing conscription would require the state to spend millions on rebuilding and modernizing barracks and acquiring weapons and training equipment, partly because the number of eligible conscripts would be higher than in the past: as in Norway a modern version of conscription arguably should apply to women as well as to men. Most notably, the real benefit of this maneuver would be overlooked: since modern armies require personnel trained on increasingly complex military hardware, those who serve only a few months would be of little use.