“Nationalism is both a vital medicine and a dangerous drug.” Those are the words of the Australian historian, academic, philanthropist and commentator Geoffrey Blainey. There is no doubt that nationalism is a vital element to build a nation. According to Brilmayer (1995), on one hand, nationalism plays an essential role in shaping the political process and defending the country and on the other hand, nationalism is a motive to self sacrifice and devotion to the state. One form of self sacrifice and a devotion to the state is conscription. Basically, it is a form of military service that links the individual with its state that may involve his death for the sake of the state’s safety and security. However, some countries use the ideology of nationalism to promote for the obligatory conscription. This raises the debate of the promotion of nationalism and its relation with conscription. The opinions on compulsory conscription have always been divided, some view it as an aggressive nationalism and some view it as strength and defend to the citizens and the nation.
Compulsory conscription can also be considered as a force labor. Not only does forced conscription have a wrong match between the jobs and the people, but also it exposes the short-term soldiers to high professional weapons and training. For instance and according to Human Rights Documentation Unit of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the Burmese military authorities implemented the forced conscription in 2005 where they forced the public to attend the military training and join the local militia. As a result, children, females and males were obligated to enter the army as an excuse to enhance nationalism although it was reported that no one will leave the army at the end of their enlistment without first recruiting three or four replacements. Another example is the relation between Germany and France after World War II, both countries has very small borders however they worked intensely to increase the solders in the army. It was then discovered that they both are using the ideology of nationalism that attracted the youth to it. It is noteworthy to know that they used to get the solders by forced conscription to join the army (Poutvaara & Wagener, 2011).
Conscription involves the inefficiency and unfairness of violating free choice and equality. Besides that conscription bears the individual from his right of choice, it offers them low wages other than the rest civilian population. The reason behind this is difference between the professional militia and a forced soldier. The high cost of training and experience limits the wages that are given to the short-term soldiers (Kwang Ng, 2008). In addition, the conscription is taxes that are forced and originally from underpaid labor services thus, the professional army assigned its staff for recruitment from the labor market and compensates it out of the revenues from taxes. This led the youth to avoid volunteering in the conscription (Poutvaara & Wagener, 2009). As for an instance, Russia’s conscription lasts for 2 years however it is evaded by 90% of the males by not only extracting fake medical certificates and university certificate but also bribing the employees or even miss out the interview in the drafting station (Poutvaara & Wagener, 2009).
As the compulsory conscription has been attacked and criticized it also has been defended. The main claim is that forced conscription teaches the youth nationalism, their rights and values and the techniques to build a well-constructive nation. According to Poutvaara and Wagener (2011) and delivering the message of Malaysia’s national Service Program at 2003 he declared: “1.instilling spirit of patriotism among the young generation or youths of Malaysia; 2. fostering unity amongst races and national integration; and 3. building positive characters through noble values.” Moreover, according to Paret (1970), he defined nationalism as national self preservation, individual awareness and appreciation to his native country. Besides, it is the loyalty to his original country and its history, culture and beliefs that urge the citizen to serve the country’s army. Nevertheless, it was found that the link between nationalism and obligatory conscription is related to the social class. For instance, in 19th century, the idea of nationalism emerged when there was a clash between the bourgeoisie and the proletarian and that erupt a new wave of acknowledging their civic rights. Thus, in order to resolve this issue the bourgeoisie distributed the rights so that the middle class and working class were sent to conscription (Paret, 1970). In addition, the media propaganda during the cold war to persuade the youth to join the army as volunteers and maybe even sacrifice his life under the name of nationalism and devotion to the state even though the professional army was ready to do this. For instance, officials would hang posters “the country needs you” and “you are the hero” to portray to the youngsters that responsibilities that he would take disguising it under the slogan of nationalism (Welch, 2014). All these were an excuse to increase the recruitment to go into war and boost the war donation.
To conclude, there is no higher value the individual can give to its native country than to fight and defend it with all his will and power. However, pushing citizens into military training may result into the opposite of the wanted outcome. Therefore, nationalism cannot be excuse to be taken in conscription. Each individual must have the right to serve his country in his preferred way that would result into a real benefit to the state. However, in the case of a country allocated in a warzone, it would be desirable to confine the military service to a fraction of the population.
Written by: Mariam Fahmy (180132)
Should Military Conscription Be Compulsory or Not? 