Around the world, 27 countries require their citizens to attend national service, a number of these requiring military service for both men and women, most for a period of no more than 18 months. But what kind of countries are implementing mandatory conscription, and is this law a benefit to society? Let’s explore this through the lens of economic and social benefits and setbacks.
At first sight, some might argue that mandatory conscription occurs as a setback to the economy. These people wouldn't be completely wrong: most obviously, mandatory conscription eliminates a huge chunk of a country's workforce, a chunk traditionally known to take on beginner-level jobs and, in recent days, to start enterprises themselves. Firms can't operate without interns and other beginner-level workers, resulting in firms having to increase their wage rate in order to bid on the few low-skilled (yet still educated) workers left in the economy. This increase in costs could not only lead to an inflation in the economy but in lower revenue, decreasing GDP. Furthermore, taking away a large chunk of the 'entrepreneur' age group can also have adverse effects on the economy: young entrepreneurs would be able to start businesses straight out of college with the money they earned during a time where their rent and food was paid for them by their parents. By introducing mandatory conscription, where soldiers' stipend is too small to actually live off of, we force aspiring entrepreneurs to use the money made during their college/high school (depending on the country) years to live while in the army. This forces soldiers to take up jobs after leaving the army in order to live everyday, making it less likely for them to ever leave the corporate world to start up their enterprises. Lastly, the opportunity cost of spending an increased amount of GDP on the army - an unavoidable aspect of mandatory conscription - is the money that could be spent on healthcare, education, and a plethora of other benefits reaped by society by government spending.
On the other hand, mandatory conscription can actually do wonders for an economy. The stipend offered to soldiers decreases unemployment numbers, keeping the first of four macroeconomic objectives in check without any true added cost to the economy. The army can be used to supply necessary and benevolent services to society, whether this be security or the maintenance of public infrastructure. The amount of young people taken off the employment market means that there are more available jobs, additionally decreasing the unemployment rate National Service means all graduates are guaranteed a job for at least 18 months, creating more national income and increasing GDP. On a larger scope, mandatory conscription increases a country's armed forces and brings them closer to superpower status, securing their reliability and stability and therefore increasing international trade.
Overall, mandatory conscription has a large opportunity-cost when it comes to government spending, but isn't necessarily more expensive than offering the unemployed benefits. Considering the effects of conscription on employment, the trade-off is unlikely to have a large negative impact on the economy. On the other hand, conscription is likely to have a positive pact on at least two of the four macroeconomic objectives, and is therefore a benefit rather than a setback.
The army could also be seen to have negative effects on the social aspect of a country. It is obvious that the army doesn't exactly value traits like creativity and curiosity, rather emphasizing 'sheeple' traits like obedience and deference to authority. This could lead to a demure and perhaps cold community, jeopardizing artistic and activist jobs but encouraging mindless following of rules. Although this argument holds some truth, especially considering the use of conscription in places like North Korea, it uses the slippery slope fallacy and therefore should be taken at face value. A bigger and more realistic concern is the concern of implementing violence in society's young minds, especially considering all the recent school shootings sighted around the world. Placing guns into every citizen's hand, without worrying about whether this person already has violent, psychological dispositions seems risky to say the least. Then again, these people are likely the same people who would be conscripted into the army voluntarily, so the argument doesn't hold as much weight as you would expect it to.
The army could also potentially have a very positive impact on social values. One country in which some of these attitudes are seen is in Israel. In Israel, the cohort in which you attended the army become a surrogate family, and alumni of the cohort are likely to offer you job offers and a place to stay whenever you need help. The army tends to knit a very tight community between ‘graduates’ of the same machlaca (unit), much like graduates from the same alma mater recognise and relate to each other throughout the rest of their lives. The flip side of this effect, though, is that a tight-knit community within an army can lead to rejection of those who haven’t been in the army, whether they are immigrants or people from different countries. This could lead to inequality in society for those who haven’t been conscripted - less job opportunities, less camaraderie and even a lack of understanding between nationalities and ethnicities.
Although mandatory conscription may sow seeds of misunderstanding between those from different nationalities, the unity it provides to those of the same country may be exactly what European countries need at the moment. Lack of assimilation and xenophobia have led European countries astray, and hate crimes are happening at higher rates than ever before. Mandatory conscription may be exactly what these countries need to force assimilation and cooperation onto its people, and to show skeptical citizens that their country is worth fighting for.
As a French student, I think that mandatory conscription is exactly what is needed in Europe. It is only by bringing everybody into the same circumstance that citizens will be able to transcend socioeconomic and ethnic differences to truly unite under the title of ‘French’, and with all of the violence and nationalism taking place currently in European countries, I believe unity is exactly what we need.
Comments