Throughout history, there has been a persistent belief that conscription, which is the compulsory enlistment of citizens for military service, has the potential to cultivate a sense of unity and equality that transcends traditional societal divisions.
Conscription has been reinstated in numerous NATO member countries, including Latvia, and it has been recently expanded to include a broader population in countries like Sweden and Estonia, in response to the growing threat of a potential Russian advance.
Nevertheless, historical analysis can provide insight into the public’s perception of conscription and its influence on the advancement of equality. The expansion of the right to vote is a prime example of the democratic reforms that were instituted in the United Kingdom in 1917. The sacrifices of conscripts during the First World War served as the impetus for this.
George Cave, the home secretary, declared that the war “has brought us closer together, has opened men’s senses, and has removed misunderstandings on all sides” due to the action of all classes of our countrymen.
The institution of conscription is frequently associated with the French revolutionary government’s levée en masse, which is widely acknowledged as the most influential early instance of this practice. This measure, which was implemented in the 1790s, was designed to fortify the military forces of the revolutionary government.
Many French citizens not only accepted the necessity of conscription but, in many cases, welcomed it with enthusiasm during that perilous period, when the fledgling republic struggled to defend itself against the coalition of countries seeking to end the revolution and restore the Bourbon monarchy.
In revolutionary France, conscription gradually replaced earlier systems of mandatory recruitment, which allowed affluent individuals to easily obtain “replacements” by compensating another individual to assume their position.
The institution’s legitimacy was still challenged by corruption and favoritism, despite the fact that this possibility was eliminated in 1798 to ensure that conscription was more equitable. Medical exemptions and discretionary selection at the local level continued to offer opportunities for the affluent to evade compulsory service.
The legitimacy of the institution of conscription has been persistently impeded by deferments and exemptions. Examples of exemptions include the possession of dependent children, the pursuit of higher education, or medical conditions that render the prospective draftee unfit for service.
The appeal of higher education deferment resulted in a substantial increase in the college enrolment rate in the United States between 1965 and 1975, during the Vietnam War. Similarly, the fertility rate increased as a consequence of a deferment for fathers, which was subsequently removed in 1970, resulting in a decline.
Self-inflicted wounds have been a last resort for some in order to secure medical exemptions, from the early days of revolutionary France to the present day in Russia.
Almanac Vesa Moilanen Kindly accept my apology.
Project 100,000 was initiated by the US Department of Defense in 1966 as a means of expanding the pool of eligible males. This resulted in the recruitment of a significant number of men who would have been disqualified in the past, as the medical and IQ standards for draftee acceptance were reduced.
Consequently, a recruitment program was implemented during the Vietnam War that was designed to recruit the indigent and disadvantaged. Record numbers of predominantly middle- and upper-class men, including future presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, avoided the conscription by enrolling in college and subsequently securing medical exemptions.
Recruiting “disposable infantry personnel”
At present, a comparable trend is being observed in the Ukraine conflict. In 2022, a significant number of Russian men who possessed marketable skills and sufficient financial resources to abandon their country fled in response to its partial mobilization.
Simultaneously, the Wagner Group, a state-funded private military corps, began to broaden its recruitment base by recruiting detainees to participate in the conflict in Ukraine. The practice was promptly emulated by the regular Russian forces.
These recruits have been cynically employed in the conflict in Ukraine as “disposable infantry” to assess Ukrainian positions for vulnerabilities, rather than committing more valuable assault troops. By employing ethnic minorities and prisoners, it is feasible to circumvent the political expense associated with mobilizing young, urban Russians.
Furthermore, there are countries in which conscription is both widely recognized and legitimate. In 2017, Sweden reinstated conscription in response to the deteriorating regional security situation, which had resulted in its provisional suspension in 2010.
In the previous year, a poll conducted among Swedes revealed that 72% of respondents were in favor of conscription. Prince Carl Philip Bernadotte, the son of Sweden’s king, was also conscripted and fulfilled his service obligation.
In Finland, an additional nation with a lengthy history of conscription, 73% of the population supports mandatory military service.
These examples illustrate the fact that there are varying viewpoints on conscription. The legitimacy of the state that employs it is inextricably linked to its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.
The current European security crisis and the conflict in Ukraine have illustrated that the persistence of conscription as a method of providing states with military personnel is improbable, despite the fact that it has undergone numerous ups and downs throughout history. Nevertheless, the extent to which it is perceived as promoting greater equality at the conclusion of a conflict is contingent upon the implementation methods of each nation.
