compulsory military service should be abolished essay

Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons Essay

Introduction, pros of mandatory military service, cons of mandatory military service, necessity of compulsory military service.

The United States does not have mandatory military service. The last time the U.S. had a draft was during the Vietnam War, from 1940-1973 (Cohen, 2019, p. 23). The issue of mandatory military service has long been a topic of debate. Proponents assert that it instills discipline, develops leadership skills, and creates a sense of patriotism. Opponents, however, argue that it infringes upon individual rights and freedoms, and can be financially burdensome. Thus, it is crucial to consider the pros and cons of compulsory military service and to consider whether it is necessary.

It is important to emphasize the primary benefits that the armed forces can receive if military service is introduced as compulsory. One of the main benefits of mandatory military service is that it instills discipline and fosters a sense of responsibility. Military training is designed to break down the individual and build them back up as a member of a team. Therefore, this process teaches recruits how to follow orders, take responsibility for their actions, and work effectively with others (Griffith & Ben-Ari, 2021). The experience can help young people develop important life skills, including self-discipline and self-confidence, which can be useful in their personal and professional lives.

Mandatory military service can also help to develop leadership skills. Military training emphasizes the importance of leadership, and all recruits are given opportunities to practice leadership skills (Griffith & Ben-Ari, 2021). This can be particularly beneficial for young people who may not have had many opportunities to take on leadership roles in their lives. Additionally, the military provides extensive leadership training to its personnel, which can prepare them for leadership positions in civilian life. Another argument in favor of mandatory military service is that it creates a sense of patriotism and national unity (Griffith & Ben-Ari, 2021). Serving in the military can instill a sense of pride in one’s country and help young people understand the sacrifices that have been made to preserve our freedom. By requiring all citizens to serve in the military, a sense of national unity can be fostered, as people from all walks of life come together to serve their country.

Meanwhile, there are disadvantages that may emerge if military service is made mandatory. One of the most common arguments against compulsory military service is that it violates individual rights and freedoms (Puhani & Sterrenberg, 2022). Citizens should have the right to choose whether they want to serve in the army or not. Forcing someone to perform against their will can be seen as violating their fundamental rights. Moreover, compulsory military service can also be financially burdensome. The costs of training and equipping conscripts can be significant, and these costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers (Puhani & Sterrenberg, 2022). In addition, military service can disrupt the lives of young people who may be pursuing their education or starting a career. It would be unjust to force them to interrupt their lives to serve in the army. Another argument opposing compulsory military service is that it can create a binary society (Puhani & Sterrenberg, 2022). Those who are unable or unwilling to serve in the military may be seen as second-class citizens. This can create social tension and resentment between those who have served and those who have not.

The question of whether mandatory military service is necessary is a complex one. On the one hand, mandatory military service can have many benefits, including developing discipline and leadership skills, and fostering a sense of patriotism and national unity. On the other hand, it can be seen as an infringement on individual rights and freedoms, and can be financially burdensome (Cohen, 2019). Ultimately, the question of the relevance of compulsory military service depends on the perspective from which one considers it. If some people consider that it is crucial to instill discipline and patriotism in young individuals, then mandatory military service may be perceived as necessary. If one believes that individual rights and freedoms should take precedence, then compulsory military service may be viewed as unnecessary. Furthermore, if compulsory military service is to be introduced, it is important to ensure that it is fairly and non-discriminatorily enforced (Cohen, 2019). It is also critical to provide support for those who may experience financial or personal hardship as a result of their service.

Hence, the issue of mandatory military service is a contentious one, with arguments for and against it. Proponents argue that it instills discipline, develops leadership skills, and creates a sense of patriotism, while opponents argue that it infringes upon individual rights and freedoms, and can be financially burdensome. Whether or not mandatory military service is necessary depends on one’s perspective. Ultimately, it is for each individual to decide whether they consider compulsory military service necessary or not. However, it is important to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of mandatory military service when making this decision.

Cohen, E. A. (2019). Citizens and soldiers: The dilemmas of military service . Cornell University Press.

Griffith, J., & Ben-Ari, E. (2021). Reserve military service: A social constructionist perspective . Armed Forces & Society, 47 (4), 635-660. Web.

Puhani, P. A., & Sterrenberg, M. K. (2022). Effects of mandatory military and alternative community service on wages and other socioeconomic outcomes . Kyklos, 75 (3), 488-507. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 3). Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/

"Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." IvyPanda , 3 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons'. 3 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

1. IvyPanda . "Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

• Boeing Aerospace Support's Business Excellence Model
• "The Language of Healthcare Reform" by Larry Levitt
• The Effects of Student Loans
• Operation Anaconda: Events and Tactical Framework
• Operation Popeye and Operation Commando Lava
• Physical and Procedural Controls for Protecting Assets
• Communication Challenges in the US Army
• V-2 Rocket and Its Impact on World War II and Today US Army

• RUSSO-UKRAINIAN WAR
• BECOME A MEMBER

The Greatest Sacrifice: Why Military Service Should Not Be an Obligation of Citizenship

Post title post title post title post title.

Earlier this month, War on the Rocks columnists David Barno and Nora Bensahel urged Americans to use Memorial Day as an opportunity to reconsider their obligations to their country . In light of the increasing irrelevance of military service in the lives of most citizens, they argued that it is necessary to “strengthen and reinforce the principle that U.S. citizenship requires serving and defending the nation when called.” The introspection they call for should continue throughout the year and would certainly contribute to an improved civil-military dialogue. However, it is important to understand the historical relationship between the U.S. military and society, as well as to consider current research on the consequences of military service. While Barno and Bensahel are correct to raise concerns about the growing alienation of most of American society from the military, we should be deeply skeptical of the common argument that conscription  could help  close America’s civil-military divide. The way to revitalize civic responsibility is not by linking it with military service. Conscription – something far less ingrained in America’s historical tradition than Barno and Bensahel allow for – will not redistribute the burden of war as widely across society as many proponents think it will, and it may not make war less likely. Making it an obligation of citizenship may only deepen the divide between those who serve and those who do not or cannot.

Barno and Bensahel do not explicitly call for a renewed draft, but they do argue that this would be more consistent with historical American practices: “For most of U.S. history,” they write, “serving in the military during times of war has been seen as a fundamental obligation of citizenship.” In reality, however, the American norm has been to rely on an all-volunteer force rather than conscription. The United States had a small standing army of volunteers for most of its history. Early wars were primarily fought by calling on troops from state militias, whose nominal mandatory service requirements were drastically affected by exemptions and substitutions — the practice of paying a fee to the government to avoid service or to someone else to serve in your place. Indeed, the founding fathers were torn over the idea of a national standing army . National conscription was tested for the first time only briefly during the Civil War, but its implementation halfway through the war was met with violent demonstrations in which hundreds died .

Barno and Bensahel’s more limited claim that conscription was the norm during wars is true, though only for a specific time period in the 20 th century. However, it is far from clear that future wars — even major wars between great powers—will require the same reliance on mass armies populated by conscripts. Advances in technology have reduced demands for mass armies and enabled countries to substitute capital for labor in their militaries. While the draft may become necessary in the event of “a really big war,” registration through the Selective Service System ensures the United States maintains the capability to quickly expand its forces. It seems imprudent to redefine citizenship by implementing a draft while such a scenario is still unlikely.

It is also not the case that the “ultimate sacrifice,” as Barno and Bensahel write, “has almost always been borne by the entire population.” While that might be the ideal, exemptions and substitutions ensured that the costs of military service were far from equally distributed across society. The poor have always been more likely to be drafted, while blacks suffered a disproportionate number of combat casualties during the Civil War as well as in Vietnam. Even after educational deferments were reduced and the lottery system was implemented in the late 1960s, equity continued to be a major issue.

The draft in the United States was never an institution that supported the ideal of a citizen-soldier , or the notion that military service is a civic duty incumbent on all citizens. Its abolition in 1973, therefore, is not responsible for destroying a culture of civic obligation and replacing it with one that emphasizes personal choice. Indeed, Ronald Krebs argues that the transition from a republican conception of citizenship obligation and identification with the state to a liberal emphasis on individual rights took place much earlier, in the years after World War II. If anything, the end of conscription reflected this shift — it did not cause it. Similarly, modern American entitlement programs  arose from demands to  care for and reward soldiers who served in the mass conscript armies of the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Far from representing an obligation of citizenship, conscription in these wars was something that merited unusual compensation, requiring the differentiation of civilians and veterans.

This is not to suggest that soldiers in these wars were not motivated by a sense of civic duty or patriotism. The point is that throughout American history, there has not been a general expectation of military service as an obligation of citizenship.

Would a return to conscription rebuild an ethos of service in America’s citizens? This seems unlikely. As long as conscription is based on selective service — the induction of only some members of an eligible age cohort, as opposed to universal enlistment — inequalities will remain. Yet universal military service seems both unlikely and ill-advised. In the entire current 17–24 year old age cohort — 33.4 million men and women —  the U.S. Army Recruiting Command has determined only 9.7 million are physically and mentally qualified for service, and an even smaller number are the high caliber recruits the army strives for. Even if we assume universal service would be performed only by 18 year-olds before they enter college (current Selective Service System numbers report more than 1.5 million 18 year-old men have registered for the draft), it makes sense that the same proportion of registrants would be eligible. This leaves two options: either draft a remarkably low proportion of the total population — denying a large number of people the opportunity to fulfill an “obligation” of citizenship and retaining the ethos of a small “warrior caste” — or drastically reduce military standards to allow all 3 million 18 year-old men and women to serve. Even if a useful purpose could be found for the entire cohort, the American public has demonstrated little willingness to pay for the much larger military this would produce without simultaneously reducing the size of the professional force — a decision that would have further consequences for the quality of the armed forces.

Setting aside the citizenship question, might a return to conscription have positive consequences for American foreign policy and civil-military relations? Barno and Bensahel raise two possibilities. First, they make the oft-repeated argument that it might make  leaders more hesitant to go to war , since more people would suffer the consequences. Indeed, there is evidence to support the notion that the draft decreases popular support for war , particularly among individuals who are most likely to be drafted. However, it is not immediately obvious  that leaders  would be responsive to the public’s preferences. One need only look to Vietnam or Iraq to see examples of leaders continuing to fight broadly unpopular wars .

In addition, some research actually supports a conclusion opposite of that suggested by Barno and Bensahel: Countries that use conscription are more likely to get involved in militarized interstate disputes and operations other than war . This could be because the draft creates a more readily available supply of personnel that can be used in conflict. Some viewed conscription as a cause of World War I and sought to abolish it after the war, with Jan Smuts arguing that conscription was “the taproot of militarism.” This is also supported by research indicating that countries tend be less judicious in how they use conscript soldiers, resulting in greater casualties among conscript armies compared to those constituted only of volunteers. While the research to date has not distinguished between countries that employ only some conscripts compared to those where conscription is more widespread and affects a broader portion of the population, it should at least give us pause before assuming that conscription makes countries more peaceful.

The second advantage of conscription that Barno and Bensahel list is that it would increase American readiness in the event of renewed great power conflict. While numerical military strength would inevitably increase, resolve for a long and bloody conflict might be lower if conscription diminishes popular support for war, thereby reducing the country’s bargaining power. Similarly, this argument elides an important question: If conscription is deeply unpopular, should leaders get involved at all in wars that require conscription to win? The draft is justifiable in the event of an existential conflict; short of that, however, widespread opposition to conscription seems to be a reasonable democratic brake on conflicts that are otherwise deemed to be in the national interest.

Requiring more people to serve in the military cannot solve the problem of frequent or unnecessary use of military force. As Barno and Bensahel would likely agree, this requires deeper evaluation of American resources and national security goals — in essence, grand strategic discipline. Still, there are broader cultural and political problems with the increasing reliance on a small subset of the population to fight the nation’s wars. Some of these problems might best be addressed by making other changes to the military. For instance, cultural changes may encourage individuals from outside the traditional recruitment base — particularly those with skills that might be vital for future warfare  — to enlist. Greater incentives and possibilities for lateral entry — the hiring of mid-career civilian professionals at ranks commensurate to their private sector experience — may not only bring valuable skills to the military, but would increase opportunities for civil-military dialogues. In addition, a recent article published in Armed Forces and Society suggests taking steps to reassert nonpartisan norms in the military; this could reduce tensions associated with the distance between the military and society by strengthening a culture of military abstention from politics.

On the civilian side, enhanced civic education may be more effective. A greater effort to seriously educate the population about the military as a profession, its expertise, and its proper role in society could go a long way toward its demystification. This may not necessarily encourage more people to serve, but it would certainly improve the average citizen’s understanding of the military and reduce America’s unhealthy adulation of military expertise. And if the ultimate goal is to revitalize Americans’ desire to serve their country and reconceptualize citizenship as endowing individuals not just with rights but with obligations, then it would be far better to mandate universal service in either military or civilian, public or non-profit sectors. Conceptualizing service to the country as strictly military only reinforces an unrealistic idealization of those in uniform and the dangerous belief that they are the only ones who can solve national problems.

Military service is undoubtedly among the most profound forms of service to the nation. I agree wholeheartedly with Barno and Bensahel’s concerns about the growing gap between those who serve and those who do not. But the answer is not forcing more people to make the great sacrifice that military service entails. The rights associated with citizenship should not be contingent on mandatory military service. While there is much room for more research into the domestic political consequences of military recruitment policies, to equate military service with citizenship is to advocate for a drastic deviation from American historical practice and values, with little if any benefit as a result. Such a shift in the definition of citizenship would only create a further wedge in an already divided society — between those who would inevitably be declared exempt and those who are not, as well as between those who support such a transformational new policy and those who do not. There are other, less divisive — and less risky — ways to address the problems created by over-reliance on a limited military caste.

Max Margulies will begin in July 2018 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Director of the Johnson Grand Strategy Program at the United States Military Academy. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the position of the Department of Defense, the United States Army, or the United States Military Academy.

Image:  U.S. Air Force/Airman 1st Class Kevin Tanenbaum

File Not Found: Russia Is Hacking Evidence of Its War Crimes

Every arsenal needs its fans: the missing piece in the national defense industrial strategy is voters, crowning achievement kaan and the turkish defense industry.

10 Meaningful Pros and Cons of Mandatory Military Service

Mandatory military service or military conscription is a strategy used by countries to build a large and powerful military ready to be deployed in times of war or when the need to protect the sovereignty of the state arises.

Many governments in history had used it, including the Qin Empire of China in 221 BC and France during the French Revolution in 1790s. Some countries impose mandatory military service even today. Among which are North Korea, which extends its 10-year military conscription last 2014; Myanmar, which requires the drafting of men and women into its armed forces; and South Korea, which imposes compulsory national service for all its citizens.

Mandatory military service is a controversial topic, and many objections have been raised against it on both religious and political grounds. This leads us to the question: Is compulsory conscription a good thing or a bad thing? Let us take a look at its pros and cons, and you be the judge.

List of Pros of Mandatory Military Service

1. Promotes National Unity Mandatory military service can promote national unity in many ways. First, it allows citizens to learn and train together, creating that shared experience of having served in the military. Then there is also that general understanding of what life in the army is like, what is required of the job, and what has to be done in order to protect the country. Citizens are able to understand and develop appreciation for the sacrifices that people in the military made for their country. And all of these can bring people together, especially when dealing with a cultural or political threat from other nations.

2. Maintain Active Military Force Having compulsory conscription to the military means having an active reserve of large body of armies that is ready to respond quickly and effectively to any threats to national security.

3. Ensures High Levels of Governmental Participation With every citizen required to joined in the armed forces when the need arise, the public will be more aware and watchful of the government’s decision, especially in terms of national security and the like. With their lives at risk or at sacrifice, people will seek to understand more about the threats that face their country and will seek a greater voice on how their government approaches problems.

4. Can Provide Useful Skills Life in the military can teach individuals more than how to throw a salute or shoot straight. The trainings they provide goes far beyond the technical skills needed to get the job done. Many military volunteers who have pursued a career in the civilian workplace mentioned several other skills and work-related attitudes that help them well in their job. These include teamwork, responsibility, initiative, stress management, diversity, and global awareness. Others learn the habits of healthy living and discipline as well as the skills in self-defense.

5. Promote Equality Among Citizens Mandatory enlistment means that “no one” will be exempted from facing wars. All citizens, be they celebrities, rich businessmen or ordinary people, will be required to serve when the nation is facing war or in need of extra soldiers.

List of Cons of Mandatory Military Service

1. Violates Free Will One of the arguments raised against mandatory military service is that it violates people’s rights to exercise free will. No one has the final say whether they should participate or not in the military training and enter the army since it is a compulsory mandate implemented throughout the country.

2. Interferes with Other Forms of Education Mandatory military service typically drafts young men (and women) when they are at the peak of their learning ability (18 years old). This delays individuals’ pursuit for higher education as well as their entry into the into the civilian labor market, reducing returns to human-capital investments as a result.

3. Put Young People’s Lives at Risk Though you might not like to think about it, part of the process is risking young people lives at risk. Casualties don’t just happen in actual combat or in the battle field but also during training and the like. Mandatory military service, which normally enlists able-bodied young people, put the next generation to serious harm and, at worst, death.

4. Compromises the Quality of Military Service Unlike voluntary soldiers who are willing to undergo rigorous training and serve the country for a long time in the military, draft soldiers often lacks the necessary experience and preparedness, providing low combat skill quality when the time comes they are sent to war. This could lead to high casualty rate among soldiers drafted under compulsory military service.

5. Not Everyone Is Fit for It Mandatory military service requires every citizen to join and serve in the armed forces, but not everyone is cut out for it. Whether it is mental issue, physical issue, or psychologically issue, not everyone is fit to meet the physical, mental and emotions demands of the job. Factors like anxiety, depression and the like should be carefully considered. Potentially killing someone is something that every person who was drafted in the military struggles with in their own way. A study conducted by the Anxiety and Depression Association of America showed that approximately 40,000 military members who returned from war in Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And that rate is three times higher among those who were deployed in combat than those who were non-deployed.

Mandatory military service has its advantages and has proven itself valuable in protecting the sovereignty of the state as well as in expanding its territories – take for example the Qin Empire that conquered a large area of what is now China, as well as the case of France during the French Revolution that was able to defend itself from the attacks of European monarchies in the late 16th century. However, its ramifications on the young people enlisted, the quality of military service, the labor market, the future generations and the like should be carefully considered.

60 Controversy Analysis 2 – “Compulsory Military Service in the United States”

Zanden Dyke

Compulsory Military Service in the United States

         The purpose of the United States military is to protect the security and interests of the nation (United States, Department of Defense). The U.S. military currently relies on voluntary enlistment to maintain its population. Conversely, many countries around the world employ the method of compulsory military service, also known as conscription, in order to consistently populate their armed forces. The details of compulsory military service can vary depending on the country; however, the concept of compulsory military service is that all able-bodied citizens of the country will be required to serve in the military for a certain amount of time after turning 18. Although the United States has experienced conscription in times of war, it has never been permanent like it is in China where the law states that is mandatory to perform military service (People’s Republic of China). The question is: Should military service in the United States be compulsory?

         It is no surprise that a topic such as compulsory military service is controversial because it has the potential to affect the lives of nearly every U.S. citizen in some way. Most of the controversy caused by this topic comes from two main disagreements: whether or not it is logical, and whether or not it is constitutional. There are not two distinct sides to this argument. In fact, there are likely countless opinions on the matter, but it would be impractical—regardless of the length of this paper—to attempt to cover every single possible opinion. The most noteworthy stakeholders of this controversy include the general public (which can be divided into at least two sides) and the U.S. government.

         The portion of the general population that is in favor of compulsory military service in the United States argue that not only is it constitutional, but it would be beneficial to the entire nation. The claim that conscription is constitutional can be supported by the statement: “The Congress shall have Power…. To raise and support Armies” ( Constitution ). It can be argued that since Congress has the power “to raise and support armies,” they have the power to mandate military service. Additionally, some people claim that the benefits of compulsory military service outweigh the disadvantages. For example, advocates of conscription claim that it would ensure the protection of the nation by guaranteeing that the amount of people in the military is consistently adequate to defend against threats of any kind. Along with serving the best interests of the nation as a whole, compulsory military service could benefit U.S. citizens individually by increasing fitness and discipline.

         The portion of the general population that is against compulsory military service argue nearly the exact opposite as those in favor of it. Opponents argue that not only is conscription unconstitutional, but it would also cause more harm than good. This side argues that conscription is unconstitutional due to the statement: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude… shall exist within the United States” ( Constitution ). Those against compulsory military service point in particular to the term “involuntary servitude” to make their argument that conscription violates the Constitution. Moreover, they claim that compulsory military service could actually hurt the United States through issues such as economic loss and disruptions in education and career paths. Considering that people would lose roughly two years—which is about the typical amount of time for mandatory military service—due to conscription, the economy would suffer the losses of two years of economic contributions per person. Similarly, conscription could put people into a position where their education or career path is interrupted due to loss of time and availability. Both of these things have the potential to harm not only the current state of the nation, but its future as well.

         The government—although not completely unified on an argument—has suggested that compulsory military service does not violate the Constitution. In the year 1917, the Supreme Court ruled that the draft, or conscription, was constitutional:

The law imposes neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment was intended to abolish only the well-known forms of slavery and involuntary servitude akin thereto, and not to destroy the power of the Government to compel a citizen to render public service. (White and Supreme Court).

Although this Supreme Court ruling took place when conscription was being considered during a time of war, the government could still argue that this ruling assures that conscription can be justified as constitutional.

         In short, due to strong arguments from the opposing sides of the debate, the topic of compulsory military service in the United States will likely remain controversial for a long time. Whether or not conscription is constitutional can be argued both ways. Regardless of future Supreme Court rulings, it is unlikely that people will ever be willing to agree on the matter. Personally, I believe that based on the words of the Constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court, compulsory military service does not violate the Constitution. However, I also believe that considering the educational and economic loss that would likely be suffered, it would be in the best interest of the nation for the military to remain as an all-volunteer force until it is absolutely necessary that military service be made compulsory.

Works Cited

  The Constitution of the United States : A Transcription. National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 28 Feb. 2017, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript .

People’s Republic of China, Military Service Law, 1984. Asian Legal Information Institute ,  www.asianlii.org/cn/legis/cen/laws/mslotproc463 . Accessed 12 Sept. 2021.

United States, Department of Defense. Know Your Military. www.defense.gov/KnowYourMilitary/Know-Your-Mil/Know-Your-Mil-Poster-Archive. Accessed 12 Sept. 2021.

White, Edward Douglass, and Supreme Court of The United States.  U.S. Reports: Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 , 1917. Library of Congress , www.loc.gov/item/usrep245366/.

Zanden Dyke’s essay, written in Dr. Tyrrell’s class, won 2nd place in its category in the 2021-2022 CU Write essay contest.

About the author.

name: Zanden Dyke

institution: Student, Cameron University

Controversy Analysis 2 - "Compulsory Military Service in the United States" Copyright © by Zanden Dyke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• A favor o en Contra
• Media and Communication
• Pros and Cons of Compulsory Military Service: Examining the Debate

Compulsory military service, also known as conscription, is a practice that requires citizens to serve in the armed forces for a certain period of time. This controversial topic has sparked intense debates across the world, with proponents arguing that it fosters a sense of duty and patriotism, while opponents claim that it infringes on individual freedoms. In this article, we will explore the pros and cons of compulsory military service , examining its impact on society, the economy, and individual rights.

Firstly, we will delve into the potential benefits of compulsory military service , such as the development of discipline, teamwork, and leadership skills among young adults. We will also discuss how it can contribute to national security and defense capabilities. On the other hand, we will explore the arguments against conscription , including concerns about the violation of personal freedoms and the potential negative effects on mental health. By analyzing both sides of the debate, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues surrounding compulsory military service .

What are the benefits of compulsory military service?

Are there disadvantages to compulsory military service, how does compulsory military service affect individual rights, is there a correlation between countries with compulsory military service and national security.

Compulsory military service, also known as conscription, has been a topic of debate for many years. Supporters argue that it has several benefits for both individuals and society as a whole. One of the main advantages is that it helps to build a strong and disciplined military force. By mandating military service, countries can ensure that they have a sufficient number of trained personnel to defend the nation in times of conflict.

Additionally, compulsory military service can promote national unity and cohesion. When individuals from diverse backgrounds come together to serve their country, it can foster a sense of shared purpose and identity. This can help to bridge social and cultural divides, promoting a sense of patriotism and national pride.

Another benefit of compulsory military service is the development of valuable skills and qualities in individuals. Military training instills discipline, teamwork, leadership, and problem-solving skills. These skills can be transferable to other areas of life, such as the workforce, and can enhance an individual's employability.

Furthermore, mandatory military service can provide young people with an opportunity for personal growth and self-discovery. It can be a transformative experience that helps individuals develop resilience, self-confidence, and a sense of responsibility. It can also expose them to different cultures, perspectives, and challenges, broadening their horizons and fostering a greater understanding of the world.

Lastly, compulsory military service can be seen as a way to promote social equity. By requiring all citizens to serve, regardless of their socioeconomic background, it ensures that the burden of defending the nation is shared by all. This can help to reduce inequalities and create a more inclusive society.

In conclusion, compulsory military service has several benefits for individuals and society. It helps to build a strong military force, promotes national unity, develops valuable skills in individuals, provides an opportunity for personal growth and self-discovery, and promotes social equity. While it is a topic of debate, these advantages cannot be ignored.

While compulsory military service has its supporters, it also has its fair share of critics. One of the main arguments against mandatory military service is the restriction it places on individual freedom. Critics argue that forcing citizens to serve in the military goes against the principles of personal liberty and autonomy.

Another concern raised by opponents of compulsory military service is the potential for abuse and exploitation. They argue that mandatory service can be used as a tool for political oppression or to further the interests of the ruling government. In some cases, individuals may be forced to serve in conflicts or missions they do not support or believe in.

Furthermore, critics argue that compulsory military service can have negative effects on a country's economy. The training and maintenance of a large military force can be costly, and the funds allocated for this purpose could be used for other important sectors such as education or healthcare. Additionally, mandatory service may disrupt an individual's education or career plans, potentially hindering their future prospects.

Another point raised by opponents is the potential for discrimination or inequality. Compulsory military service may disproportionately affect certain groups, such as those with lower socioeconomic status, who may not have the same resources or opportunities to fulfill their service obligations. This can perpetuate existing social inequalities and create an unfair burden on certain segments of the population.

Additionally, critics argue that mandatory military service can have negative psychological effects on individuals. The exposure to the harsh realities of warfare and the traumas associated with military service can lead to long-lasting mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These psychological effects can have a significant impact on the overall well-being and quality of life of those who have served.

While there are valid arguments against compulsory military service, it is important to consider the potential benefits and the context in which it is implemented. Each country must weigh the advantages and disadvantages to determine whether mandatory military service is the best approach for their national security and societal needs.

It is essential to have open and informed discussions about the topic, taking into account the perspectives of both supporters and critics. By examining the arguments for and against compulsory military service, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding this issue and work towards finding the most suitable solutions for our societies.

Compulsory military service , also known as conscription, is a policy that requires citizens to serve in the military for a certain period of time. While some argue that it is necessary for national defense and fostering a sense of duty and discipline, others believe that it infringes upon individual rights and freedom of choice.

Those in favor of mandatory military service argue that it is a vital component of national security . They believe that every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the defense of their country. By requiring individuals to serve in the military, it ensures that there is a sufficient number of trained personnel to protect the nation from external threats.

Furthermore, proponents argue that compulsory military service instills discipline , leadership skills , and a sense of responsibility in individuals. It teaches them important values such as teamwork, self-discipline, and resilience. The military training and experience gained during this period can also be beneficial for personal and professional development.

On the other hand, opponents of mandatory military service raise concerns about its impact on individual rights. They argue that it violates the principle of freedom of choice by forcing individuals to serve in the military against their will. It is seen as a form of involuntary servitude, which goes against the principles of personal freedom and autonomy.

Additionally, critics argue that compulsory military service can have negative consequences on individuals' lives. It disrupts their education, career plans, and personal goals. Some individuals may not have the physical or mental capabilities to serve in the military, and forcing them to do so can lead to unnecessary stress and hardships.

Moreover, opponents highlight the potential for abuse and discrimination within the system of compulsory military service . They argue that certain groups may be unfairly targeted or disproportionately affected. For example, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds or marginalized communities may face greater barriers in accessing exemptions or alternative forms of service.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding compulsory military service centers on the balance between national defense and individual rights. While proponents argue for its necessity in ensuring national security and fostering important values, opponents raise concerns about its infringement upon freedom of choice and potential negative consequences for individuals. Ultimately, the decision on whether to implement compulsory military service should consider these arguments and strive to find a balance that respects both national interests and individual rights.

One of the main arguments in favor of mandatory military service is that it ensures a strong national defense and enhances national security. Proponents argue that by requiring all citizens to serve in the military, countries can maintain a well-trained and prepared armed forces. This can deter potential aggressors and protect the country from external threats.

In countries with compulsory military service , there is often a sense of unity and national pride that comes from serving in the military. Citizens who have completed their military service often feel a strong sense of loyalty and commitment to their country. This can foster a collective responsibility for the defense of the nation and create a strong bond among citizens.

Furthermore, mandatory military service can provide young individuals with valuable skills and training that can be beneficial in their future careers. Military training often focuses on discipline, teamwork, leadership, and problem-solving skills. These skills can be transferable to various civilian professions, such as law enforcement, emergency services, and management positions.

On the other hand, opponents argue that mandatory military service infringes upon individual freedoms and rights. They believe that citizens should have the choice to serve in the military or pursue other paths in their lives. Forcing individuals into the military can be seen as a form of conscription or forced labor, which goes against principles of personal liberty.

Additionally, critics argue that compulsory military service can disrupt the lives and plans of young individuals. It can delay their education, career opportunities, and personal development. Some individuals may feel that they are not suited for military life or have other aspirations that are hindered by mandatory service.

Moreover, there is a concern about the potential for abuse and mistreatment within the military. Critics argue that mandatory military service can expose young individuals to harsh conditions, physical and emotional abuse, and other forms of mistreatment. This can have long-lasting negative effects on the mental and physical well-being of those who serve.

In conclusion, the debate on mandatory military service is complex and multifaceted. While it can enhance national security and provide valuable skills to individuals, it also raises concerns about individual freedoms and potential mistreatment. Ultimately, the decision to implement compulsory military service should be carefully considered, taking into account the specific needs and circumstances of each country.

Si leer artículos parecidos a Pros and Cons of Compulsory Military Service: Examining the Debate puedes ver la categoría Media and Communication .

• Global Perspective: Support or Opposition to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Pros and Cons: Debating Propositions - A Comprehensive Analysis

The Pros and Cons of Tax Reform: Analyzing the Impact and Controversy

The Death Penalty: Examining Pros and Cons of the Controversial Practice

Pros and Cons of Labor Reform: Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks

The Controversial Issue of Abortion: Exploring Pros and Cons

Analyzing the Implications: Pros and Cons of Privatizing Public Services

Analyzing the Pros and Cons of the Peace Process: Benefits and Drawbacks

The Pros and Cons of Graffiti: Evaluating the Artistic Rebellion

Published daily by the Lowy Institute

Debating South Korea’s mandatory military service

An exemption from military service for a football star has brought global attention to a simmering social issue.

• South Korea

By now, most people in South Korea know the national team’s victory over Japan in the Asian Games football tournament secured not just the gold medal, but also an exemption from military service for Tottenham Hotspur’s  Son Heung-min . The win also brought global attention to a simmering social and political issue in South Korea.

All male South Koreans aged 18 to 35 undertake mandatory military service. Most start in their early 20s, disrupting tertiary education or postponing career entry. For most, mandatory military service includes five weeks of boot camp, and around two years of mind-numbing battalion boredom, indoctrination, and short bouts of intense training. Understandably, few want to do military service.

South Korea is a country going through momentous social change. What commenced with economic development in the 1980s, and continued with political development in the 1990s, continued into the 2000s with social change. But since the 2010s, youth unemployment, economic instability, gender inequality, corruption and social immobility has led to growing social dissatisfaction with the pace of this change.

Critics argue South Korea’s mandatory military service system is more likely to train recruits in make-up and skin care, than it is to prepare them to defend the country.

Mandatory military service is an ever-recurring source of social dissatisfaction. Controversies include  corruption , easier service conditions for  celebrities , dual national  service obligations ,  bullying , and an outdated criteria for  exemptions .

Exemptions to military service are the  latest controversy . There are currently no exemptions for  conscientious objection , something the government is looking into after a June 2018 Constitutional Court decision required the government to provide alternatives forms of national service. Exemptions for having excessive tattoos, being overweight, underweight, having certain medical conditions, holding foreign citizenship and/or residency, being of non-Korean ethnicity, and studying in fields deemed of national importance, have all been restricted.

Exemptions are given to high-achieving sports figures, artists, classical musicians and dancers, but controversially, not to high-achieving  pop culture stars , actors or film-makers.

Mandatory military service historically serves two broad aims: national security and nation building. It can act as an important force multiplier in periods of national emergency, and can equally act as an important social equalizer, reinforcing the individual’s connection to the nation and society. For many South Koreans, its current form does not fully reflect either of these aims. Debate is emotional and muddied by nationalist rhetoric and political ideology.

On one side are those who see mandatory military service as a bulwark. It is seen as essential in the context of North Korean contingencies, ranging from invasion to collapse. Equally, it is seen as essential in the context of the fraught geopolitical situation amid US interests, Japan, China and Russia.

Some also see mandatory military service as a bulwark supporting South Korean traditions and society. It encourages social connection, conformity, hierarchy, and a shared sense of national pride. Among those having completed their service, popular sentiment has it that the experience “makes boys into men” – even arguing that it’s essential to understand and survive South Korea’s work and  corporate culture .

On the other side are those who believe that the current mandatory military service is an obstruction. It is seen as outdated and ineffective in the context of national security. Countries facing similarly fraught geopolitical situations do not restrict service to just one half of the population and allow exemptions for conscientious objection. All Israeli citizens undertake mandatory military service, with females serving around two years, and there are stipulated exemptions for religious students.

Critics argue South Korea’s mandatory military service system is more likely to train recruits in  make-up and skin care than it is to prepare them to defend the country. Others see mandatory military service as an obstacle to transforming South Korean society. It discourages diversity and inclusion, further marginalizes the socially estranged, and above all, buttresses  entrenched gender inequality . 

Reforming South Korea’s military service system is a political can of worms with few clear options. Abandoning mandatory military service in favour of an expanded volunteer professional service would serve national security aims, but at the same time, would not serve nation building aims. Restructuring military service into a non-compulsory, better-paid, reserve service would serve both national security and nation building aims, but would potentially reinforce social and economic inequalities. Restructuring mandatory military service into a modern institution to strengthen diversity and push gender equality would serve nation building aims, but would potentially neglect national security aims. 

The Moon Jae-in administration currently plans to reduce mandatory military service to 18 months. In face of recent events, it’s also promised to review the military service exemption system. Both plans are already attracting controversy, and there’s little political will to push for further reform.

With declining birth rates; an ever-present, albeit momentarily reduced North Korean threat; and smoldering social dissatisfaction regarding its management; mandatory military service will remain a simmering social and political issue for South Korea – but not for Tottenham Hotspur or Son Heung-min.

Related Content

Moon’s last, best chance after Biden summit

You may also be interested in, vietnam, north korea, politics and covid-19: the numbers tell a story, détente divergence: the us-south korean split, “lawfare” in the south china sea disputes.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses

Compulsory Military Service Essay

by Ritesh (Bangalore)

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Essay: Loving Wildlife and Nature

May 10, 24 02:36 AM

Paraphrasing in the IELTS Test: Speaking and Writing

May 03, 24 10:26 AM

Fillers for IELTS Speaking: Avoid 'Eh', Uhm', 'You know'.

Apr 27, 24 05:48 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Best In Countries

Get to know us, let us help you.

Disclaimer: The reference papers provided by acemyanswers.com serve as model papers for students and are not to be submitted as it is. These papers are intended to be used for research and reference purposes only.

Copyright © 2020 acemyanswers.com. All rights reserved

Germany accelerates debate over reintroduction of compulsory military service

Defense minister boris pistorius has prepared a proposal to address the lack of soldiers in the army with the support of the social democrats and conservatives.

Germany’s military rearmament, in addition to a representing a major financial outlay, also involves solving a pressing problem: the shortage of soldiers in the army. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has been discussing possible models to revive compulsory military service for some time and now more and more political figures, both from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the conservative CDU/CSU, are preparing the ground for what already looks like a probable reintroduction of conscription.

Pistorius wants to reverse Germany’s decision to abandon compulsory military service in 2011, noting during a visit to the United States last week that “times have changed.” In his opinion, suspending it was “a mistake.” “I am convinced that Germany needs a form of military conscription,” he said during a speech at Johns Hopkins University. For the Social Democrat, it is a necessary step to “ensure military stability” at a time when the war in Ukraine threatens Europe’s security .

The German army, with a regular strength of 180,000 soldiers, has become too small. This is a reality that the government has been warning about for some time. The recent restructuring of the army to make it “war-ready” also involves increasing the number of troops. The government has calculated as a target a figure of at least 203,000 soldiers to ensure full defensive readiness. Added to this is the fact that 20,000 new soldiers a year are needed just to compensate for those who leave the service. Plans put in place in the past to reach a level of 203,000 personnel were unsuccessful. In addition, there are not enough reservists to meet requirements in the case of emergencies.

With these figures in hand, the Minister of Defense undertook a tour of various countries to analyze different forms of military service on the ground, such as for example that which exists in Sweden , where male and female citizens have to fill out a questionnaire at the age of 18, which includes information about their physical fitness and whether they would be willing to perform voluntary military service. The most suitable candidates are then contacted and asked to participate in a call-up, as only a certain percentage can be trained each year. However, if there are not enough volunteers, compulsory conscription can be introduced. This model is the one that is gathering strength in Germany.

The “Pistorius option” is expected to be announced soon. His spokesman stressed last Wednesday that the minister will present the proposal this quarter, i.e. by June at the latest. It will then be discussed in the German government — led by the Social Democrats, with the support of the Greens and Liberals — and then in parliament. “It is important that we have an army that is effective and can fulfill its tasks. How exactly this can be guaranteed now and, in the future, will be discussed in the coming weeks and months,” said Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s spokesman Steffen Hebestreit. The obligation could then apply to some 600,000 Germans who reach adulthood each year.

For the time being, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) voted at its federal congress last week in favor of gradually introducing a year of compulsory service for all, whether in the German army, in social work or, for example, in disaster relief or with the emergency services. The conservatives’ proposal is that a group of army experts would determine how many troops are needed each year. Only those needed at the time would be called up.

The defense policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German parliament, Florian Hahn, called on the defense minister to quickly present plans for the gradual reintroduction of compulsory military service. While the conservatives’ proposal would be in line with that proposed by Pistorius, talks are not yet underway, as the defense minister pointed out. The model he will present for discussion is expected to be similar. “I would like to publicly explain more details when I have spoken with my coalition partners and parliamentary group partners,” Pistorius said of something he believes should happen “shortly.”

The cost of military service

In addition to the conservatives, SPD leader Lars Klingbeil said he was open to a debate on social or military service for young people. “Every young citizen should have to face the question of whether they can imagine themselves serving the country,” he told the Rheinische Post newspaper. “It could be in the military or in the social or cultural sector. We should go back to that.” However, he rejected a return to the “old compulsory military service.”

The German parliament suspended military service in 2011, 55 years after it was introduced. However, its legal basis in the Constitution remained. According to current legislation, compulsory military service can be resumed in the event of increased tensions and the need to defend the country. However, reactivating it entails a cost that will have to be included in the budget in a year in which the weakness of the German economy does not leave much room for maneuver.

With the so-called special fund for the army of €100 billion ($108 billion) almost on its last legs, Pistorius is already calling for a significant increase in the regular defense budget for next year. To raise the money needed for his plans, he wants defense and civil protection spending to be excluded from the debt brake set in the Constitution. In his view, without security, a balanced national budget is of little value, he said last week.

The response from Finance Minister Christian Lindner was not long in coming. “Unfortunately, Pistorius only points to the option of creating security through debt. Citizens are increasingly being saddled with permanent interest burdens,” said the leader of the Freedom Party (FDP). “The best way is to reallocate money in our large state budget and get the economy moving,” Lindner added about a looming budget debate that will again strain the coalition government.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

More information

Putin issues new threat to West on Victory Day in Moscow: ‘We will not allow anyone to threaten us. Our strategic forces are always combat ready’

‘I was almost a little amused.’ Schäuble’s posthumous memoirs reveal a proposal to overthrow Merkel

Archived in.

• Olaf Scholz
• Francés online
• Inglés online
• Italiano online
• Alemán online
• Crucigramas & Juegos

• Home (current)
• Intellectual Property Law
• Constitutional Developments
• Protests and Riots
• Recent Updates
• Criminal Law
• Finology Legal

Should India have compulsory military service?

India's army boasts over 1.4 million active personnel, making it the second-largest in the world and also the world's largest volunteer army. Some Indians believe that compulsory military training and conscription should be implemented, citing countries such as Singapore and South Korea as examples. 

However, the question remains whether mandatory military service would be feasible or democratic in India. So, it's a hot topic, and opinions are all over the place. 

Let's dig into this discussion about whether India needs compulsory military service & the meaning of Conscription in this context along with the pros & cons of having compulsory military in India.

What do you mean by Conscription?

Conscription, simply put, is a common practice where people were required to join the military during war or crisis. This idea originated during the French Revolution when having a solid military became crucial. However, in the 21st century, many countries have shifted towards having professional militaries with volunteers enlisted to meet the demand for troops. 

This approach highlights the importance of predictability regarding war-fighting needs and the extent of hostilities. Although many countries have abolished Conscription, they still reserve the power to reintroduce it during war or emergencies.

Did India ever have conscription laws?

India has always had a voluntary armed force without any conscription laws. However, the Indian constitution has a provision in Article 23 that allows the government to mandate Conscription in the interest of national security and public welfare. However, India has never applied this provision. 

Read about Right against exploitation (Article 23 & 24 of the Indian Constitution)

Conscription has gained attention in recent years due to reports of recruitment shortfalls, particularly for officer positions, since 2008. This shortfall in recruitment poses a threat to national security.

Since India's Independence, there have been several systems of compulsory military training for students in public schools and universities, although Conscription was not mandatory. 

The National Cadet Corps (NCC), established in 1948, aimed to generate youth interest in defending the country. In 1962, China invaded Indian territory , leading to the implementation of specific emergency recruitment regulations. 

As we might have witnessed in our private schools or colleges during the summer holidays, all the students who joined NCC were required to undergo NCC training, which included handling weapons and ammunition. 

Pros and Cons of Compulsory Military Service

There are several benefits of having compulsory military service:

Firstly, it ensures a large pool of trained and disciplined personnel, which can significantly enhance the armed forces' effectiveness. 

Conscription also promotes national unity and a sense of patriotism as citizens from diverse backgrounds come together to serve their country. 

Furthermore, compulsory military service can give young individuals valuable life skills, such as leadership, teamwork, and self-discipline.

There are valid concerns raised by critics of compulsory military service, which are:

They claim it suppresses individual freedoms and can disrupt young adults' personal and professional plans. 

Furthermore, maintaining a large conscripted force can be an expensive financial burden for the government. 

Additionally, Conscription may not necessarily result in a high-quality military force, as some individuals may lack the necessary skills, interest or motivation.

Benefits of Having Compulsory Military Service in India

Imagine a diverse group of young citizens coming together through compulsory military service, gaining training in military operations, leadership, and teamwork. So, beyond just strengthening the defence forces, they will also carry these skills into their civilian life, fostering personal and professional growth through discipline and collective responsibility.

Implementing compulsory military service in India promises to address critical gaps in the armed forces. By creating a larger pool of trained personnel, the military would become more operationally effective.

This move could also nurture a deep sense of national unity and patriotism, rising above diverse backgrounds. 

Drawbacks and Challenges of Having Compulsory Military Service in India

Dealing with mandatory military service in India require addressing the logistical complexities of a sizable conscripted force. It's essential to invest sufficiently in infrastructure, budget carefully, and implement rigorous selection processes. So, striking the right balance among these is crucial.

Managing a large conscripted force within the country's vast population poses logistical complexities. 

Appropriate infrastructure and resources must be in place to effectively accommodate and train recruits. The financial burden on the government to maintain such a force is considerable and requires meticulous budget allocation.

Rigorous selection processes and comprehensive training programs are essential. Additionally, the potential impact on individuals' personal and professional lives must be weighed carefully, as Conscription may disrupt their plans and aspirations. 

Balancing these benefits and challenges is crucial in determining the viability of compulsory military service in India.

Is Compulsory Military Service an answer to India's National Security Challenges?

After analysing the situation, it can be said that compulsory military service might solve some of India's national security challenges. It has the potential to create a larger pool of trained personnel, promote skill development among the youth, and foster a sense of national unity. 

However, implementing Conscription in a country as diverse and populous as India would pose logistical, financial, and social challenges. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully evaluate the practicality and feasibility of implementing compulsory military service and consider alternative approaches to strengthening national security.

Countries with compulsory military

Critics of mandatory military service in Russia argue it could impede personal freedom and disrupt young adults' plans, posing financial burdens on the government. Concerns also revolve around potential variations in motivation and skill levels among conscripts, impacting the overall effectiveness of the military.

SOUTH & NORTH KOREA

For 73 years, South and North Korea, technically at war, intensified military efforts. North Korea enforces compulsory military service at 17-18, reducing it to 10 years for men (from 13) and introducing it for women in 2015. South Korea mandates military service for men (21-24 months) but offers alternatives, and exceptional athletes may be exempt.

Israel's 1949 Security Service Law mandates military service at 18, except for some groups. Two to eight months of service is required for Jewish, Druze, or Circassian individuals, with exemptions for specific cases. Recent data shows 47% of Jewish Israelis support a shift from mandatory to volunteer military service for the Israel Defense Forces.

In Brazil, all male citizens undergo 12 months of mandatory military service at 18, with the option to extend for up to 8 years. Refusal may result in the suspension of political rights, impacting voting and candidacy eligibility. Women are exempt from compulsory military service.

Iran mandates military service for men aged 18-24 (18-24 months), with exemptions for women and health reasons. Sons over 18 with fathers above 60 may also be exempt. Refusal without valid reasons results in severe consequences, and a recent proposal to let individuals over 35 buy exemptions for $10,000 faced public backlash and was abandoned.

Hence, in India, the decision to serve in the military has always been a matter of personal choice, with no compulsory conscription laws in place. Article 23 of the Indian constitution grants the government the authority to mandate Conscription if needed. However, recent concerns about a shortage of army recruits, mainly those suitable for officer roles, have ignited discussions on the necessity of Conscription. 

As India weighs its options between continuing with an all-volunteer force or implementing conscription, the country is at a crucial crossroads. The future could see a shift from voluntary enlistment to mandatory service, or it could maintain its reliance on the voluntary spirit to safeguard its interests. So, the path ahead presents fascinating opportunities for India's defence landscape. 

Read latest news on laws in India. Get the detailed articles on legal, current affairs, geopolitics and Indian Constitution:  Here

Explore best online courses for law exams which are specially designed for UG & PG law students with crash courses & current affair updates.  Learn with Finology Legal   & crack exams such as CLAT, AIBE, UPSC etc.

She is a Legal Content Manager at Finology Legal! With a Masters in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), a BBA.LL.B from ITM University, and patent analyst training from IIPTA, she truly specializes in her field. Her passion for IPR and Criminal laws is evident from her advanced certification in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Profiling from IFS, Pune.

Liked What You Just Read? Share this Post:

Wanna share your views on this comment here:.

Related to this

Under legal.

Bail Provisions in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 

Election Petition: Everything You Need to Know

Draft Bot Pro- Legal Drafts in Seconds

What Happens When Voters Vote for 'NOTA'?

Is Election Day a Paid Holiday?

Finology legal on facebook, finology legal on twitter.

Copyright © 2024 Finology Ventures Pvt. Ltd. | All Rights Reserved

Popular Tags

Popular authors.

Popular Posts

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Deep, Tangled Roots of American Illiberalism

By Steven Hahn

Dr. Hahn is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at New York University and the author, most recently, of “Illiberal America: a History.”

In a recent interview with Time, Donald Trump promised a second term of authoritarian power grabs, administrative cronyism, mass deportations of the undocumented, harassment of women over abortion, trade wars and vengeance brought upon his rivals and enemies, including President Biden. “If they said that a president doesn’t get immunity,” Mr. Trump told Time, “then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes.”

Further evidence, it seems, of Mr. Trump’s efforts to construct a political world like no other in American history. But how unprecedented is it, really? That Mr. Trump continues to lead in polls should make plain that he and his MAGA movement are more than noxious weeds in otherwise liberal democratic soil.

Many of us have not wanted to see it that way. “This is not who we are as a nation,” one journalist exclaimed in what was a common response to the violence on Jan. 6, “and we must not let ourselves or others believe otherwise.” Mr. Biden has said much the same thing.

While it’s true that Mr. Trump was the first president to lose an election and attempt to stay in power, observers have come to recognize the need for a lengthier view of Trumpism. Even so, they are prone to imagining that there was a time not all that long ago when political “normalcy” prevailed. What they have failed to grasp is that American illiberalism is deeply rooted in our past and fed by practices, relationships and sensibilities that have been close to the surface, even when they haven’t exploded into view.

Illiberalism is generally seen as a backlash against modern liberal and progressive ideas and policies, especially those meant to protect the rights and advance the aspirations of groups long pushed to the margins of American political life. But in the United States, illiberalism is better understood as coherent sets of ideas that are related but also change over time.

This illiberalism celebrates hierarchies of gender, race and nationality; cultural homogeneity; Christian religious faith; the marking of internal as well as external enemies; patriarchal families; heterosexuality; the will of the community over the rule of law; and the use of political violence to achieve or maintain power. This illiberalism sank roots from the time of European settlement and spread out from villages and towns to the highest levels of government. In one form or another, it has shaped much of our history. Illiberalism has frequently been a stalking horse, if not in the winner’s circle. Hardly ever has it been roundly defeated.

A few examples may be illustrative. Although European colonization of North America has often been imagined as a sharp break from the ways of home countries, neo-feudal dreams inspired the making of Euro-American societies from the Carolinas up through the Hudson Valley, based as they were on landed estates and coerced labor, while the Puritan towns of New England, with their own hierarchies, demanded submission to the faith and harshly policed their members and potential intruders alike. The backcountry began to fill up with land-hungry settlers who generally formed ethnicity-based enclaves, eyed outsiders with suspicion and, with rare exceptions, hoped to rid their territory of Native peoples. Most of those who arrived in North America between the early 17th century and the time of the American Revolution were either enslaved or in servitude, and master-servant jurisprudence shaped labor relations well after slavery was abolished, a phenomenon that has been described as “belated feudalism.”

The anti-colonialism of the American Revolution was accompanied not only by warfare against Native peoples and rewards for enslavers, but also by a deeply ingrained anti-Catholicism, and hostility to Catholics remained a potent political force well into the 20th century. Monarchist solutions were bruited about during the writing of the Constitution and the first decade of the American Republic: John Adams thought that the country would move in such a direction and other leaders at the time, including Washington, Madison and Hamilton, wondered privately if a king would be necessary in the event a “republican remedy” failed.

The 1830s, commonly seen as the height of Jacksonian democracy, were racked by violent expulsions of Catholics , Mormons and abolitionists of both races, along with thousands of Native peoples dispossessed of their homelands and sent to “Indian Territory” west of the Mississippi.

The new democratic politics of the time was often marked by Election Day violence after campaigns suffused with military cadences, while elected officials usually required the support of elite patrons to guarantee the bonds they had to post. Even in state legislatures and Congress, weapons could be brandished and duels arranged; “bullies” enforced the wills of their allies.

When enslavers in the Southern states resorted to secession rather than risk their system under a Lincoln administration, they made clear that their Confederacy was built on the cornerstone of slavery and white supremacy. And although their crushing defeat brought abolition, the establishment of birthright citizenship (except for Native peoples), the political exclusion of Confederates, and the extension of voting rights to Black men — the results of one of the world’s great revolutions — it was not long before the revolution went into reverse.

The federal government soon allowed former Confederates and their white supporters to return to power, destroy Black political activism and, accompanied by lynchings (expressing the “will” of white communities), build the edifice of Jim Crow: segregation, political disfranchisement and a harsh labor regime. Already previewed in the pre-Civil War North, Jim Crow received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court and the administration of Woodrow Wilson .

Few Progressives of the early 20th century had much trouble with this. Segregation seemed a modern way to choreograph “race relations,” and disfranchisement resonated with their disenchantment with popular politics, whether it was powered by Black voters in the South or European immigrants in the North. Many Progressives were devotees of eugenics and other forms of social engineering, and they generally favored overseas imperialism; some began to envision the scaffolding of a corporate state — all anticipating the dark turns in Europe over the next decades.

The 1920s, in fact, saw fascist pulses coming from a number of directions in the United States and, as in Europe, targeting political radicals. Benito Mussolini won accolades in many American quarters. The lab where Josef Mengele worked received support from the Rockefeller Foundation. White Protestant fundamentalism reigned in towns and the countryside. And the Immigration Act of 1924 set limits on the number of newcomers, especially those from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were thought to be politically and culturally unassimilable.

Most worrisome, the Ku Klux Klan, energized by anti-Catholicism and antisemitism as well as anti-Black racism, marched brazenly in cities great and small. The Klan became a mass movement and wielded significant political power; it was crucial, for example , to the enforcement of Prohibition. Once the organization unraveled in the late 1920s, many Klansmen and women found their way to new fascist groups and the radical right more generally.

Sidelined by the Great Depression and New Deal, the illiberal right regained traction in the late 1930s, and during the 1950s won grass-roots support through vehement anti-Communism and opposition to the civil rights movement. As early as 1964, in a run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Gov. George Wallace of Alabama began to hone a rhetoric of white grievance and racial hostility that had appeal in the Midwest and Middle Atlantic, and Barry Goldwater’s campaign that year, despite its failure, put winds in the sails of the John Birch Society and Young Americans for Freedom.

Four years later, Wallace mobilized enough support as a third-party candidate to win five states. And in 1972, once again as a Democrat, Wallace racked up primary wins in both the North and the South before an assassination attempt forced him out of the race. Growing backlashes against school desegregation and feminism added further fuel to the fire on the right, paving the way for the conservative ascendancy of the 1980s.

By the early 1990s, the neo-Nazi and Klansman David Duke had won a seat in the Louisiana Legislature and nearly three-fifths of the white vote in campaigns for governor and senator. Pat Buchanan, seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 1992, called for “America First,” the fortification of the border (a “Buchanan fence”), and a culture war for the “soul” of America, while the National Rifle Association became a powerful force on the right and in the Republican Party.

When Mr. Trump questioned Barack Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president, a project that quickly became known as “birtherism,” he made use of a Reconstruction-era racist trope that rejected the legitimacy of Black political rights and power. In so doing, Mr. Trump began to cement a coalition of aggrieved white voters. They were ready to push back against the nation’s growing cultural diversity — embodied by Mr. Obama — and the challenges they saw to traditional hierarchies of family, gender and race. They had much on which to build.

Back in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, in “Democracy in America,” glimpsed the illiberal currents that already entangled the country’s politics. While he marveled at the “equality of conditions,” the fluidity of social life and the strength of republican institutions, he also worried about the “omnipotence of the majority.”

“What I find most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there,” Tocqueville wrote, “but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny.” He pointed to communities “taking justice into their own hands,” and warned that “associations of plain citizens can compose very rich, influential, and powerful bodies, in other words, aristocratic bodies.” Lamenting their intellectual conformity, Tocqueville believed that if Americans ever gave up republican government, “they will pass rapidly on to despotism,” restricting “the sphere of political rights, taking some of them away in order to entrust them to a single man.”

The slide toward despotism that Tocqueville feared may be well underway, whatever the election’s outcome. Even if they try to fool themselves into thinking that Mr. Trump won’t follow through, millions of voters seem ready to entrust their rights to “a single man” who has announced his intent to use autocratic powers for retribution, repression, expulsion and misogyny.

Only by recognizing what we’re up against can we mount an effective campaign to protect our democracy, leaning on the important political struggles — abolitionism, antimonopoly, social democracy, human rights, civil rights, feminism — that have challenged illiberalism in the past and offer the vision and political pathways to guide us in the future.

Our biggest mistake would be to believe that we’re watching an exceptional departure in the country’s history. Because from the first, Mr. Trump has tapped into deep and ever-expanding illiberal roots. Illiberalism’s history is America’s history.

Steven Hahn is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at New York University and the author, most recently, of “ Illiberal America: a History .”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .