Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
National service, (re-)introduction of
Section E. Social, moral and religious
The Proposition team needs to define what it means by ’national service’. In post-war Britain, in several continental European countries and in Israel today, national service means military service with one of the armed forces. This is a valid debate, but other forms of national service could be considered: public service on environmental projects, working with the homeless, people with disabilities, those who are underprivileged, and so on. A choice between the two could be offered. Other issues should be considered: at what age should it be compulsory (pre- or post-university, or should there be a choice)? How long should it last? Should it be for men and women, as it is in Israel, or for men only as in countries such as Turkey and Singapore? Most of the key arguments, however, remain the same whichever model is chosen: do the benefits of national service to the individual and society justify the compulsion? Germany, Italy and France have all abandoned national service in recent years, but other countries are debating its reintroduction.
Pros
[1] It is the right of the state to call upon its citizens to serve it in times of need, and democratic governments in particular have a mandate for such action. National service is often used in times of war. Conscription on a permanent basis would keep a ’standing army’ ready and trained for times of emergency as well as catering for other eventualities.
[2] National service promotes a clear sense of nationhood, integrating individuals from diverse groups and fostering a respect for different cultural and regional traditions. Over a generation, this will help to create a more cohesive yet tolerant society, more committed to public life. We can compare older generations in the USA and the UK with their more feckless successors, and look to the states of Switzerland and Israel where national service provides valuable social cohesion.
[3] National service also provides the young with valuable experience, teaching self-discipline, a sense of purpose and important skills (e.g. driving, IT, administration and personnel management), along with a wider sense of responsibility to the community. It also develops physical fitness and it can be a start to work as a mechanic, electrician, paramedic, chef and many other careers.
[4] National service would provide a way to tackle social problems, from the environment to urban deprivation and major disaster relief.
[5] National service would be a civic duty equivalent to jury service and paying taxes, and the loss of liberty would be justified as such. Conscripts would be repaying their debt to the society which offers them largely free education and (in many countries) welfare benefits throughout their lives. The safety of a nation is something that everybody benefits from and so everybody should contribute to it.
[6] National service would give everyone a stake in the military. Decision makers and the electorate as a whole will all have served and will all have family members in service. This will give a great understanding of the realities of military pressures. Troops would only be sent into a war zone where necessary and for the right reasons because of the heightened public involvement.
Cons
[1] There would need to be a ’clear and present danger’ to the nation to justify military conscription; people’s liberty cannot be removed ’just in case’. The military does not wish to see the reintroduction of conscription, as it would dilute the professionalism of a standing army, and many of its best instructors would waste time training recruits who do not wish to be there. The nature of warfare has changed and most conflicts no longer require large numbers of troops, but rather streamlined, well-equipped and well- trained forces.
[2] National service could easily be used for propaganda, not celebrating differences but seeking to eradicate them; the armed forces do not have a strong reputation for political correctness. Compulsory patriotism is questionable and may be misused by politicians.
[3] Compulsory service is likely to be resented, undermining any possible benefits. An elaborate bureaucracy would be needed to prevent candidates evading callup, which would often be easier for the prosperous middle class than for workingclass families — as in the USA at the time of the Vietnam War. The scheme would cost vast sums even without this bureaucracy. If personal development is the aim, then the money would be better invested in training schemes and apprenticeships.
[4] As with any form of forced labour (e.g. slavery or workfare), leaving such projects to national service recruits will simply ensure they are done badly, with little enthusiasm. Many people are currently paid to undertake the kind of work that non-military national service would involve; their jobs and salaries would be at risk. It might also discourage volunteering; if the state provides a workforce for such projects, there is no incentive for anyone else to help. A better alternative would be to incentivise a voluntary national service plan, perhaps with lower tuition fees at university for those involved.
[5] It is wrong in principle to compel adults to work against their will. It is worse still to compel them to risk their lives in the armed forces. Eighteen year olds may wish to be studying at university, volunteering abroad or may already be parents themselves. They should be allowed the freedom of choice to follow their own path. Taxpayers already contribute to the welfare state; there is no need to make them pay this debt twice.
[6] A national service may actually lead to a country getting involved in more conflicts, as it will need to justify the conscription, will not find its troops are overstretched and will need something to do with all its conscripts.
Possible motions
This House supports national service.
This House would bring back the draft.
Related topics
Pacifism
United Nations standing army
Social contract, existence of the