Left-right divide on more difficult admission to civilian service
Published: Friday, Jun 7th 2024, 09:50
Volver a Live Feed
The tightening of admission requirements for civilian service divides the political camp along the traditional left-right divide. The red-green camp criticized it in the consultation process as an attack on civilian service. For the conservative parties, the reform is necessary in order to secure the army.
The aim of the Federal Council is to reduce admissions to civilian service. According to its own statements, it wants to enforce the constitutional requirement that there is no freedom of choice between military and civilian service. The Federal Council is proposing six measures to achieve this.
For example, those subject to military service who have already completed all their training service days should no longer be admitted to civilian service. An annual deployment requirement is to be introduced for those performing alternative civilian service from the date of admission to alternative civilian service.
Persons who have already completed a significant part of their military service must complete 150 days of civilian service. The proportionality of the total duration of military and civilian service should also be maintained for officers and non-commissioned officers.
Applicants who have submitted their application during recruit school should be obliged to complete the long assignment no later than the calendar year after the admission decision becomes legally binding. Finally, assignments that require a degree in human, dental or veterinary medicine should be prohibited.
De facto free choice
The center supports the change in the law. The current "de facto freedom of choice between civilian and military service" is an increasing challenge for the army to replenish its ranks. Civilian service must return to its original function, namely to offer an alternative to military service for people who cannot perform it for reasons of conscience. The revision makes this possible without calling into question the proof-of-deed solution and the social contribution of those performing civilian service.
For the FDP, the reform ensures that civilian service remains a strictly regulated alternative. The party particularly welcomes the tightening of the admission requirements for civilian service for those who have already begun or completed a significant part of their military service. This measure would prevent a continuous erosion of the skills and experience gained by the army.
The Association of Service Providers for People with Support Needs (Artiset) has no objections to most of the proposed measures. Implementation will have no direct impact on the deployment of community service workers in facilities and structures for people with support needs.
Criticism of "attack" on civilian service
The SP and the Greens reject the revision. The SP sees this as an "unnecessary and unjustified attack on civilian service". The proof solution is constitutional and offers no freedom of choice. The proposal would lead to fewer people doing civilian service, but not to an increase in the number of soldiers to the same extent. Many would prefer to take the "blue route", i.e. to cite medical reasons in order to be declared unfit.
For the Greens, alternative civilian service has already worked perfectly. It is efficiently organized and useful for society and meaningful for those doing community service. The proposed measures would massively reduce the services provided by community service in the public interest, while the need for it would increase.
The Swiss Civilian Service Association (Civiva) rejects the revision of the law as a whole. The association points out that the actual number of military personnel is higher than permitted and continues to increase every year. This "anti-liberal project" violates the constitution by restricting the principle of proportionality, the right to equal treatment and the right to civilian service. Civiva intends to fight the bill with a referendum if necessary.
The Group for a Switzerland without an Army (GSoA) is also against the revision of the law. For the GSoA, the plan is also "offensive in terms of democratic policy", as stated in a press release.
©Keystone/SDA
Spanish 
English 
German 
French 
Arabic