NO to the Amendment of the Civil Service Act
A vote on the amendment to the Civil Service Act will also take place on June 14. The amendment aims to solve an alleged personnel shortage in the military by weakening the civil service. Volt says NO to the amendment of the Civil Service Act because there are doubts about the claimed military personnel shortage, the reform is unconstitutional, it would lead to personnel shortages in critical sectors, and because civil service and military service should not be played off against each other.
The Proposal in Brief
Amid rising geopolitical uncertainties due to numerous military conflicts in Europe and worldwide, demands for rearmament are growing across the continent. Switzerland has also addressed this issue, deciding to increase its military budget. Beyond budget increases, Parliament aims to boost the number of active soldiers. There is concern that there are currently too few soldiers and that too many are discontinuing their service after basic training (recruit school). Consequently, a parliamentary majority has decided to reform the civil service, reducing its attractiveness to make military service more appealing.
Why Volt Says NO
This decision, however, is based on a misinterpretation of the facts and misses the mark. First and foremost, the question arises whether the army does not have too few, but rather too many soldiers. Research by the Republik concludes that the army has no personnel problem at all, meaning there is no basis for an amendment.
Another defined problem was that too many military personnel quit the military after recruit school and switch to civil service, causing the army to lose valuable knowledge and experience painstakingly acquired during training. However, the proposal would not create incentives to stay in the military; it would merely make switching to civil service less attractive. The blanket requirement of 150 service days for any soldier switching is unconstitutional. Military personnel with existing conscientious objections would find it significantly harder to switch to civil service. Example: If 20 service days remain in the military, the reform would require 150 days in civil service instead of the current 30. Such a reform would trigger numerous lawsuits with uncertain outcomes, creating massive insecurity for everyone - soldiers, the army, employers, and families.
Another fatal misconception is the idea that civil service is merely an alternative service and should therefore be understood as an exception rather than the rule. This often overlooks the significant contribution civil service members make to Swiss social cohesion. Many civil servants work in nursing homes, hospitals, schools, environmental protection, and agriculture/alpine farming. These are sectors with significant skilled labor shortages. The loss of civil servants would have severe consequences here, substantially impairing the quality of care, social services, and education. It must also be noted that civil service (365 service days) already requires one and a half times as many service days as military service (Recruit School plus repetition courses model: 245 days; Continuous Service model: 300 days).
In this regard, it is also disastrous that the reform would deprive medical students of the opportunity to perform specific assignments. These are positions requiring studies in human medicine, dentistry, or veterinary medicine, which can be credited as work experience. This would further exacerbate the skilled labor shortage in hospitals and represent a massive setback for medical students.
Finally, the greatest fallacy lies in the belief that military service and civil service can and should be played off against each other. This overlooks the fact that the two services cover completely different areas and make their own distinct contributions to Switzerland's security. Security policy distinguishes between negative and positive peace. While the military ensures negative peace in Switzerland (the absence of armed violence), civil service fosters positive peace (the absence of structural, indirect violence by ensuring a dignified life). Instead of making civil service less attractive, efforts should focus on enhancing the attractiveness of military service.
Conclusion
For Volt, there is no personnel problem in the military, meaning the debate is being conducted on false premises. Rather, the discussion should focus on how the army can be made fit for the future. Switzerland could look to the Swedish model, which is very similar to its own: All 18-year-olds receive a questionnaire collecting information on fitness for military service. Those fit for service are invited to conscription, and upon successful completion, 12 months of military service follow. As in Switzerland, there is a civil service alongside the military because general conscription, including civil service obligation, applies. The Swedish system enjoys broad acceptance among the entire population, including young people.
Furthermore, discussions should address what contribution Switzerland can and should make to a European army. Additionally, we should discuss how service models can be adapted and made more inclusive for women*, BIPoC, Queer people, and foreigners. Instead of playing service models off against each other, we should look to the future and address the relevant questions.
Sources
https://www.vbs.admin.ch/de/finanzierung-armee
https://www.zivi.admin.ch/de/abstimmung-zur-aenderung-des-zivildienstgesetzes
https://www.republik.ch/2022/12/12/die-schweizer-armee-ist-groesser-als-erlaubt
https://zivildienstgesetz-nein.ch/
https://www.zivi.admin.ch/de/grundauftrag-und-gesetzlicher-rahmen
https://www.zivi.admin.ch/dam/de/sd-web/d-IfjznNNSkP/ZIVI_Faktenblatt_Abstimmung14.06.2025-de_def.pdf
https://www.armee.ch/de/rekrutierung-wk-oder-durchdiener
https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/politiklexikon/17511/frieden/
https://wfd.de/informieren/was-ist-frieden/
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/wehrpflicht-schweden-102.html