Should young people go to war for Germany? Of all people, we, a generation that is often underestimated politically and portrayed as “unimportant” economically, should be the ones who defend the country in an emergency? Should we take responsibility for a state that has been destroying its education system for decades?
These questions concern many young people. They show how deeply the debate about a possible return of compulsory military service affects our lives.
Freedom and self-determination of young people
In my opinion, universal conscription for men and women is not justified. Conscription means coercion, and coercion contradicts the basic idea of a free, democratic society.
Young adults are at the beginning of their lives. They want to decide for themselves which path they want to take: training, studies, career, year abroad, personal development. Mandatory military service takes away this freedom and forces them into a role that they did not choose.
Proponents argue that freedom only exists because democracy protects it. But that is precisely why the state must not restrict the freedom it claims to protect. Laws are intended to secure freedom, not restrict it.
Moral responsibility and psychological stress
Added to this is the moral responsibility that comes with being a soldier. Young people are still developing: their brains are not fully mature, their moral judgment, impulse control and risk awareness are still changing. Asking them to kill in extreme cases is an enormous psychological burden that can have long-term consequences.
It is often said that moral risk must be distributed fairly. But what does “fair” mean when in the end it is the youngest people who have to make the most difficult decisions and bear the consequences of political decisions?
Compulsory service as a fairer alternative
Instead of compulsory military service, a general compulsory service would make more sense. It could strengthen social institutions, improve infrastructure and enable young people to find their place in society. Military service would be an option, but not mandatory.
A service obligation would open up a wide range of activities: social work in daycare centers, schools or care facilities, ecological projects in nature and climate protection, support in cultural and educational institutions or deployments in disaster control. All of these areas are chronically understaffed and would benefit from additional support.
At the same time, compulsory service could offer young people real orientation. They could get to know different fields of work, develop new skills and find out which career paths suit them.
However, compulsory service would have to apply to everyone and be designed in such a way that young people really get something out of it: experiences, skills, perspectives. It’s not just the state that can benefit.
The discussion about compulsory service must not go over our heads. It’s about our future, our freedom and our responsibility. A fair solution can only be achieved if young people themselves are involved in shaping it. E.