Saying no to military service – obligation, killing and inequality as experienced problems in conscription-based military in Finland

Conscription has always been both recruitment for military purposes and a type of relationship between citizens and the state. Kestnbaum (2008) summarizes three interlinked political–societal processes that have affected the development of citizen conscription in Europe: the emergence of the national citizen as an organizing principle in politics, the formation of state policies of compulsory service in the line army based on national citizenship and the initial mobilization of a wide swath of the people for war by the state (Kestnbaum 2008: 119). Conscription has been closely related to the establishment of democracy in most of the Western European countries.

The Finnish model of conscription took shape at the end of 1800s. The role of the state has been significant in the history of general conscription, and conscription has been argued to be a supporting process for the construction of the nation state in Finland. It has been a state-centric way to recruit the soldiers to fight for the state as a part of their civic duty. According to Kari Laitinen (2005), conscription and military service are the citizen’s duties and obligations for the nation and the state. Conscription incorporates the question about the power of the state, the nation or the ruler and the subjects, who make personal sacrifices for the state (Laitinen 2005: 9, 20–21).

According to the Conscription Act, every Finnish male citizen is liable for military service starting from the beginning of the year when he turns 18 years old, until the end of the year when he turns 60. Fulfilment of military service includes service as a conscript, participation in reservist training, extra service and service during mobilization, in addition to participation in call-ups and examinations assessing fitness for military service (Conscription Act, Chapter 1, Section 2).

Women can also apply for voluntary military service. The number of women in military service has increased in recent years. In 2018, 1,156 women applied in military service, which is the highest number yet (The Finnish Army 2018). Military service lasts 165, 255 or 347 days for both men and volunteer women.

The obligation to complete conscript service or non-military service ends at the end of the year, when the conscript turns 30 years old.

Citizenship is a key concept while studying the citizen’s relation to the state. Citizenship is defined as a legal status of a person recognized under the constitution as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. Citizenship can be inherited from parents or it can be obtained through various processes. Citizenship is assumed to be linked to the nation state and its civic, political or societal rights (Turner 2001: 192; Kuusela 2006: 33). Finland is a Nordic welfare state where the state’s responsibility for health and social services, social policy, social security, equality between citizens and genders, high levels of education and employment is significant (e.g. Kettunen 2001; Pesonen and Riihinen 2002: 42–51; Saari 2006: 13–62). A democratic welfare state guarantees equal civil rights for all its citizens and persons staying legally in the country.

Individualization and globalization have dismantled the relevancy of nation states in Finnish society and Western democracies during the last decades (Helkama 2015: 220; Adres et al. 2012). Conscription amalgamates the defence obligation with the civil rights. Conscription based on citizenship and civil duties creates a citizen-soldier who can expect reciprocity from the state and society (Danielsbacka 2015: 274). Being prepared to die and kill on behalf of the nation is seen as an ideological cornerstone of national belonging and a sound qualification for gaining the rights to material benefits. This creates a mutual obligation between the nation, the military and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility (Ware 2010: 321–322).

In the context of conscription, conscripts have a dual role and identity as a civil citizen and civilian-soldier. Referring to Levi (1997) and Peri (1993), Adres et al. (2012: 95) argue that studying military service in democracies reveals critical elements of the relationship between the citizens and the state, and that military service ceases to be a symbol of citizenship only in modern nation states that no longer fight wars, or where the likelihood of conflict is remote. Over 70 years has passed in Finland since the last war. Changes in the security and military–political situation in Europe, and a global environmental crisis have been assumed to affect a citizen’s relationship to national defence and comprehensive security. In Finland, all citizens have a general defence obligation, but military service obligates only men.

While studying citizen-soldiers we are dealing with such classic themes of military sociology as the relations between the AF and citizens, and the military as an institution (Ouellet 2005: 2; Rukavishnikov and Pugh: 2003, 131). The relevant issues in civil–military relations are civilian and state control of the AF. A revised conceptualization of civilian control has distinguished between two modes of civilian control over military affairs: control of the military and control of militarization (Levy 2016). It may also be control from within, when the soldiers or combatants take some form of control of military actions, deployment or policies framing military operations (Levy 2017). On the one hand, conscription can be seen as one form of civilian control. A conscription system might ensure civilian control of the military; yet it does not automatically ensure mutual understanding (Cohen 1985: 67). On the other hand, conscription expresses the power and control of the state over the citizens. Cohen (1985: 68) argues that peacetime conscript (military) service is often as much a political institution as a method for procuring men for the armed services. So, nations will accept penalties in military efficiency in order to preserve military obligation as an integral part of citizenship (Cohen 1985).

We argue that one particular forum of civilian control is the citizens’ or conscripts’ negotiation of their individual role, attitudes, values, identity and agency in national defence and within the conscription system. Civilian control has been associated with citizens, conscious objectors, conscripts or combatants’ attitudes and actions towards AF or war (Fisher 2014).

Military service is also associated with an individual’s identity, loyalty and willingness to cooperate with the state. To be a soldier, one must be a member of the community of citizens and prospective soldiers are raised from wider non-military society in order to be merged into an AF (Kestnbaum 2008: 121). Cohen (1985) argues that a conscript is not merely a soldier who can vote, but a sort of civilian-soldier. Hence, the bulk of the AF consist of men whose main pursuits are pacifist, who are fresh from their civilian lives and look forward to their swift return to those lives, whose main identity is as citizens and not as soldiers, whose loyalty lies with home and community and not with the military as a corporate body (Cohen 1985: 123–124).

Due to the dual identity – as a citizen and soldier – reservist or conscripts may encounter a role conflict while negotiating between these roles, identities and values. The military roles and the demands of these roles create personal distress and interpersonal conflicts for reservists. Studies have pointed out the roles that reservists assume, such as family member, worker, recreational athlete or friend. Actual or potential conflicts may complicate commitments and sets of behaviour in military service (Vest 2012; Griffith 2005: 357).

If movement and negotiation between the different roles and identities fail, an individual conscript has various options. The conscripts have wide discretion in the Finnish conscription system. They can choose between conscript service and non-military service. Some of the conscripts are released from conscript service for health reasons. Only conscientious objectors face a legal punishment. Conscription is a statutory civic obligation. As a strand of citizenship, it presents the willingness to cooperate with the state, specifically represented by the military or the government’s conscription agency (cf. Moskos and Chambers 1993: 5).

Most of the countries that have conscription-based military service also have alternative options for those who are conscientious objectors or object to taking up arms. In Finland, a person liable for military service who states that serious reasons of conscience founded on conviction prevent him from carrying out the service laid down in the Conscription Act will be exempted from such service and assigned to perform non-military service. Conscientious objectors that refuse to perform the military and the non-military service are by law sentenced to imprisonment (Conscription Act of Finland 2007; Non-Military Service Act 2007). Persons who have completed conscription service or women’s voluntary military service may apply to non-military service by completing supplementary service² (Non-Military Service Act 2007: Sections 2 and 58).

The attitude towards conscription and an individual’s own agency have been seen to relate to individualization, globalization and changes in citizenship (Adres et al. 2012: 93; Kosonen et al. 2019; Puustinen et al. 2018). Previous studies suggest that an individual’s level of globalism, lack of active local ties, as well as higher levels of consumerism significantly increase the tendency to evade military service (Adres et al. 2012: 95). Changes in citizenship alter the idea of conscription as an obligatory part of citizenship (Eichler 2013; Ware 2010).

In Finland, Valdemar Kallunki (2015) argues that the groups choosing conscript service or non-military service are strongly different. The meanings given to non-military service are: service subordinated to conscript service, a choice grounded in conscience, a choice based on practical reasons and service bringing social benefits. Conscientious ground is required when choosing the non-military service, but it is not investigated by the authorities. The reasons related to conscience are often difficult to justify and differentiate from practical reasons (Kallunki 2015: 31–33, 46).

Soldiers, including citizen-soldiers, face the question of killing and the legitimacy of war or combat. These themes are included as a part of ethical and psychological performance in conscript and reservist training in Finland (Aalto 2016; Toiskallio 2009). Over the centuries, individual soldiers have refused to kill the enemy, even when they knew that it would endanger their own lives (Grossman 1995: 29). The respect for human life is a fundamental basic value for humanity, and the resistance to killing human beings might be stronger for civilian minded citizen-soldiers, obligated to military service and participation in combat, than for professional soldiers.

Citizen-soldiers might be considered transmigrants, moving and negotiating between these different roles and identities (Griffith 2009: 40–41; Lomsky-Feder et al. 2008; Ben-Ari et al. 2004). The dual identity created by conscription may be problematized on the individual level when moving between the civilian and soldier roles. When enough issues become problematized, the individual can use his/her control over the military by deciding to evade military service. In this article, we explore these issues in the context of Finnish conscription.

This article is based on 46 individual and 7 group interviews (altogether 71 persons) of Finnish conscripts who were liable for non-military service and the persons who had completed conscript service and had applied for transfer to non-military service. The interviews were conducted in 2017 as part of the TAHTO research project by the National Defence University. All of the interviewees were volunteers and they were informed about the research, data collection and analysis and reporting. The research permission and research ethics principles were agreed upon with The Centre for Non-Military Service which is responsible for the implementation of non-military service basic training and supplementary service for those resigning from the reserve.

While studying the relations between citizens, national defence and society, we found these groups to be valuable and appropriate to interview and discuss their own views and experiences. We hypothesized that these groups had been pondering their own personal relationship to the dual identity as a citizen and a soldier. These target groups have not been studied in Finland before, excluding Valdemar Kallunki who has analysed the reasons and convictional premises of applying to non-military service (Kallunki 2015) and the societal integration of citizens attending military service or non-military service (Kallunki 2013).

The interviews were conducted as semi-structured thematic interviews (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2018: 81–89). The interviewees were reservists who were resigning reserve (n = 33) and persons liable for non-military service (n = 38). We conducted the interviews with non-military service attendees at the Centre for Non-Military Service during the basic training period of non-military service. The interviews with the reservists resigning from the reserve were conducted at the Emergency Services College during two different supplementary training weeks. All the interviewees were men, aged 18–46.

The interviewees were asked to reflect upon (a) their own relationship and position in the Finnish welfare state,

The framework of our study is based on studying the relations between the citizens, welfare state and national defence.

The interview data (47 hours and 48 minutes) was transcribed word for word. The analysis of the data was conducted as a content-based content analysis (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2018: 122–127; Hsieh and Shannon 2005; Weber 1990: 40–58). During the process we constructed 37 categories and 589 subcategories of data, which are summarized and reported in four distinct categories in the following sections.

The interviewees reflected on their role in national defence and conscription as well as on the ways to organize the defence system through conscription, all-volunteer forces or a professional military. The idea of conscription was mentioned as one of the civic duties for men, in addition to tax liability and the obligation to comply with Finnish law. Most of the interviewees did not see a reciprocal relationship between the Finnish welfare state, civic rights and conscription. Conscription was primarily seen as conscript service and the period of time it takes to complete it.

Finnish conscription appeared problematic for the interviewees in relation to compulsion and gender inequality.

According to the interviewees, there is a need for the existence of the Defence Forces and national defence due to threats in the security environment surrounding Finland, and in Europe in general. Even though compulsory military service was experienced as a one-way obligation by the state, the interviewees did not see an acute need for changes in the short term. There is a reasonable amount of discretion in the system: it is possible to choose between conscript service, unarmed service and non-military service according to personal interests.

The interviewees avoided identifying themselves as conscientious objectors.

A conscript who completely refuses any kind of service provided for in this Act, including unarmed service, and does not apply for non-military service, is sentenced, in lieu of applying the provisions in chapter 45 of the Penal Code 39/1889), to a penalty for refusing military service as provided for with regard to refusing non-military service in the Non-Military Service Act (Conscription Act 1438/2007, Chapter 13, Section 118).

The interviewees also contemplated upon the criminal conviction from two perspectives: the person in question and social unity and justice.

While considering different aspects of conscription, citizenship and his own role as a citizen-soldier, one of the interviewees summarized that conscription is an excellent system for the state and AF, but it is quite greedy for the individual male citizen. Different models could allow a wider freedom of choice for citizens to find their role and ways to take part in national defence or comprehensive security in society. The majority of the interviewees did not believe in all-volunteer forces or the potential of fully professional forces. The fully professional forces might be highly motivated and trained, but it would be too expensive to organize the defence system in Finland. The interviewees doubted the sufficiency and competences of volunteers in recruiting the all-volunteer forces.

Even though the compulsory nature of conscription was criticized on the individual level, the interviewees were satisfied that someone takes responsibility for the defence of the state.

Some of the persons wanted to deconstruct their own role in conscription and armed defence. Most of the interviewees resigning from the reserve noted the deeply rooted tradition to complete conscript service in Finland. They had not experienced real choice in choosing between conscript service and other options during the call-up because of social pressure or the lack of information about the options. Many of them suggested that one is too young at the age of 18 to be able to really understand the meaning of conscript service and the totalitarian demands of conscription.

Getting married, childbirth, life experience and maturing as a person had initiated the processes to question one’s dual identity as a civilian and a citizen-soldier. The civilian mindset goes against the obligation to take part in a possible war and even to kill other people if needed. Also, a weak trust in one’s own competencies or Finland’s ability to act against the likely enemy was related to deconstructing the own role as a part of FDF.

A vast majority of the interviewees described a socio-normative burden constructed by the obligation to complete conscript service as part of the maturation process and of achieving full membership in society. They had experienced social pressure from their parents, grandparents or friends. The historical narratives concerning World War II, the war veterans of the previous generations and fulfilment of the obligation had led to the completion of military service.

There had also been normative and ethical clashes between one’s own values and abilities in relation to the obligation of choosing conscript service. The interviewees resigning from the reserve (46%) had completed their conscript service, and about 20% of the interviewees had begun but dropped out of conscript service. Almost everyone wanted to tell us the reasons for choosing non-military service or resigning from the reserve although it was not directly asked during the interviews.

The advantages of the non-military service were considered more significant than the ones in conscript service, both for the individual and for the state. The content of the basic training period and community service in non-military service were seen to be more useful in the future in terms of learning, work experience and becoming employed than traditional conscript service.

Non-military service was compared with conscript service. Poor orientation, adjustment and adaptation to conscript service, daily routines, living arrangements, lack of free time, physically demanding training and military discipline were the problems faced among most of the interviewees who dropped out of conscript service. Due to the experienced low risk of military threat to Finland, it was a typical experience that there is no need for conscript service, or that it is a waste of time for an individual citizen.

The majority of the interviewees expressed positive support for the development of gender-neutral national service alongside conscription. They would not resolve the gender inequality problem of conscription by forcing women also to complete compulsory military service. They suggested that a new model would activate the citizens to take a role in national defence in armed, non-armed or comprehensive security actions, and it would be equal for men and women.

Some of the interviewees wanted to make a clear distinction between themselves and the AF by choosing non-military service even though convictions were not emphasized in our material. The problematic issues were the ethical question of killing and the obligation to be trained to be part of an organization using violence.

The third problematic issue – killing – was linked to the legitimation of war, conscription and a citizen’s dual role as a citizen-soldier. Based on the interviews, we propose that age, life cycle and life experiences are significant explanatory factors for ethical and convictional premises problematizing killing as a citizen-soldier. There was a difference in the discourse while talking about and assessing one’s own attitude towards killing on behalf of the state, or as self-defence as an individual.

Overall, killing was linked to ethical and conscious reflections towards arms and one’s own actions in war. The interviewees reflected on their relationship with weapons and the use of force. The ethical questions concerning the use of weapons or killing another person had been discussed in conscript service, but the dilemmas were not being resolved on the individual level.

In addition, the ethical problems of using weapons against another person in a war had become problematic during different phases of life. Most of the interviewees liable for non-military service had been reflecting upon their relationship to weapons and killing while choosing non-military service during the call-up process or in conscript service. The ones who were resigning from the reserve had thought about these issues in connection with life events such as marriage, childbirth or even the live exercises in conscript service. They argued that 18-year-old youngsters are too young to internalize the attitudes or behaviour of a soldier as part of citizenship and the related obligation. At the age of 24 years or so, many of them began to think seriously about these issues that had not been relevant before. This consideration was associated with the dual identity and transmigration between the roles of a civic-citizen and a citizen-soldier.

The legitimation of war and conscription were combined with the reflections concerning killing and weapons. Also, a significant issue was the obligation of a citizen to act as a soldier and to participate in combat if needed. The only type of legitimate war was to defend and protect the state, especially the society and people. According to our interviewees, defence of borders and nation states is not as legitimate as defending humans and humanity. The preservation of state sovereignty was also mentioned as worthy of defending by force of arms, but the attitudes towards its legitimacy were dispersed.

Conscription as an obligation for men in Finland imposes a dual identity on youngsters as civilians and as soldiers. According to the interviewees, there is not enough guidance to deal with the transmigration between these roles in the Finnish conscript training. The obliged soldiers’ role may be adopted at the age of 18, but personal maturation may problematize the transmigration between these roles and identities. Those who do not know how to deal with the role conflicts are more responsive to outside influences and impulses when constructing their own agency as part of national defence.

There was a dichotomy in the interviewees’ attitudes towards their own role in armed or non-armed roles and actions in national defence and conscription. The majority of the interviewees expressed a personal willingness to fulfil their national defence obligations even though military service in itself was problematized. Only three of our interviewees said that they would flee the country if there was a war.

Most of the interviewees did not know their tasks or duties in war time organizations. Those liable for non-military service and the reservists resigning from the reserve do not have assigned tasks in war time organizations or in abnormal conditions – or they do not know their duties. The most prominent way to construct one’s role and agency was to find ways to support the civilian society and people in different crises. Different tasks related to humanitarian aid among civilians were often mentioned as ways to support the society.

The role of civilian education and expertise was emphasized by the interviewees when constructing non-armed roles in national defence. The interviewees see the roles through their own personal and professional positions and competences. The utilization of one’s personal abilities was related to the individual’s values and experiences as part of the national defence obligation. Most of them wanted to find ways to support society, the authorities and their communities by using these skills and abilities. They discussed the complete destructive effect of a possible war and the responsibilities of reconstructing the infrastructure or structures of the society.

The experience of one’s own role as a part of the AF sorted the interviewees into three categories: (a) does not want to have any role or connection with the AF, (b) wants to have non-armed tasks based on his civilian occupation, but could act as part of the AF and (c) could act or train to act with armed duties as part of AF. Connections to rescue, security, police and civil defence authorities were found in the non-armed duties. In their role as part of the AF they brought up humanitarian concerns, and many of them were ready to act, for example in logistics and maintenance units. There was a perceived discourse of helping, supporting and securing people when the interviewees reflected upon their roles and duties in national defence and conscription.

The interviewees highlighted the importance of crisis prevention and conflict resolution as part of the activities of states. A few of them considered their role and potential to work with peace and security or with international diplomacy as a feasible option.

Based on our findings it would seem that people are ready to serve in various different roles, duties and tasks as part of the comprehensive framework of national defence. It is clear that these tasks include much more than “just” serving as a civilian-soldier, or taking up arms when needed. Almost everyone is willing to do their part, given that they have a choice to define their role.

Although we studied marginal groups in conscription, Finnish men who were liable for non-military service and who had completed conscript service and had applied to transfer into non-military service, the results can be utilized in a wider conceptualization of conscription, its patterns and the commitment of conscripts. It should be noted that we did not reach all of the groups, for example conscripts performing conscript service, conscientious objectors or women resigning from reserve, who might construct their relation and agency in conscription and national defence in a very different manner. This is a challenge for future research to tackle.

The citizens’ relationships to defence are highly contextual, especially in terms of the security situation. Our study is conducted in the context of long-lasting peace and stability. This may stress the role of the individual’s freedom of choice and personal gains when making choices concerning conscription and national defence. The experience of threats to the state and society can be associated with the individual’s attitude towards national defence and allocation of society’s resources to defence actions. Had the study been performed in a situation with the threat of a military conflict, the results might focus more on one’s relation to the armed defence of the state instead of the security of civil society.