Let’s face it: the purpose of the military is to kill. Conscripts learn ways of doing this efficiently and in keeping with the collective ethos. If the UK Tories were really concerned about the state of society, they could show it by agreeing to the demands of GPs and tax the rich to grant medical officers the 35% pay rise they need rather than attempting to reintroduce conscription.
It takes a desperate government to propose conscripting young people. The English Conservative Party is by all measures, looking at a drubbing in the election of 4 July and the prospect of compulsory ‘national service’ really should put the result beyond doubt.
I am not sure to whom this promise is meant to appeal. Perhaps anyone who is already past the projected age of 18 might think it has the one advantage – it will not apply to them. Young people are already disillusioned with politics, both because of the cynical practitioners and because governments refuse to address policy issues such as climate change. Perhaps the Tories want to conscript the young so that they feel a greater stake in the country and will not protest.
Coupled with a plan to abolish ‘non-performing’ university degrees as a means of funding more apprenticeships, the Tory attitude is clear. They blame everyone but employers, investors and the rich. Older people might imagine that military service gives young people some discipline but the need for discipline is greatest among the aristocratic ‘upper class’ and the plutocrats.
Opponents of conscription in the first world war had it right: if there is a national emergency, conscript wealth, not powerless people. Governments wanting to boost enlistment ensure that wages are low and people desperate. If the Tories were really concerned about the state of society, they could show it by agreeing to the demands of GPs and tax the rich to grant medical officers the 35 % pay rise they need.
If there is some trashy appeal to patriotism in this policy, let us remember that the idea is regarded as the last refuge of scoundrels. You cannot force people to love their country.
So what might a year’s military service achieve? Will it give young people extra skills or greater resourcefulness? It is unlikely that it will achieve more in this regard than the proposed civilian alternative. In reality, the military discourages resourcefulness in favour of blind obedience.
Let us face it: the purpose of the military is to kill. Conscripts learn ways of doing this efficiently and in keeping with the collective ethos. While police and community leaders express alarm about the numbers of young people carrying knives, surely Sunak cannot believe that bayonet drill will make young people less inclined to carry and use blades.
Conscription does nothing for social harmony. This is the British military responsible for massacres in Kenya, China, Palestine, India, Australia and New Zealand – to name a few. Hatred of the enemy involves racist slurs and heterosexuality is paramount in armed services.
The military is not egalitarian but elitist. I was appalled to learn – from Antiques Roadshow no less – that the number of Victoria Crosses available for award during the 1914-18 war was strictly limited. After one action, a number of service personnel were deemed to be deserving of the decoration. So what did the high command and the aristocracy decide? Put their names in a hat and a draw a few out. The difference this made to the lives of those who got the medal and those who did not was enormous. This process smacks of the same disdain which led officers to send soldiers to certain death and to execute those they condemned as cowards.
Perhaps the intention is to give slouching youngsters a ‘military’ bearing. Recruits are told that only pregnant women cross their arms. In this day and age, you would assume that females would be treated equally and so conscripted alongside men. Unfortunately, their experiences are likely to be marked by sexual harassment.
The military is steeped in elitism. The worst form of insult is that you are a ‘civvie in disguise’.
Australia held two referenda during the 1914-18 war and both were defeated. Perhaps it was significant that Australia was not directly threatened and that many Australians, including many of Irish descent were not enthusiastic about the British empire. During the Pacific war, a technicality allowed the despatch to New Guinea of soldiers who were conscripts in all but name. Then we got the infamous scheme of the 1960s. Professional soldiers were ambivalent about the scheme. The motivation of conscripts was suspect and the money spent on the scheme could have had better uses.
Both Britain and Australia are marked by inequality. The richest 10% in each country hold about 43-45% of wealth. It seems obvious enough that the role of government in Britain has long been to make excuses for the monopolisation of power by elites. The roots of disappointment in the Albanese Government lie in that same direction.
Could an Australian Labor leader make an election promise as desperate as the British Tory proposal? Given the Albanese government’s support for a US war against China and an Israeli genocide in Gaza, it no longer seems far fetched…
Dr Tony Smith is a former political science academic with interests in elections, parliament and political ethics.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
