An interesting question was asked of me on Thursday (by Paul Lee):

“Would you undertake 18 months National Service in order to gain the right to vote?”

In the context of the question (Paul’s hypothetical ideal state), the service in question would not necessarily be military, and participants would be given an monetary allowance per month. Food, clothing and basic living would be covered by the state as well. In return for duties (civil or military) to the state, the participant would be awarded the right to vote. Non-participants would not have the right to vote. A citizen could become a participant at any time in their life.

I answered an unerring “Yes”.

This was despite my disagreement with the proposed model of “national service-for-a-vote”. While there was a rationality of “If you care enough to want to vote, you undertake the service”, there is an element of coersion or blackmail in the proposal. However Paul did not purport that his state be a liberal democracy, but rather something closer (at least in terminology) to the democracy of the French Revolution, in the sense that there would exist a distinction between passive and active citizens. (Both males and females could be citizens, as well as migrants after a period).

I value my political voice. Indeed, there may be a valid argument for lowering the voting age to 16 or 17, given that many of that age are actively engaged in the workforce, or even supporting themselves. It would be a challenge to political parties to engage with the even younger demographic, something which is still not happening now (perhaps with the exception of The Greens). The Liberal’s recent offer of “free public transport for students” is blatant vote-buying.

National service itself is a good thing. It is a means of an individual to give back to society and the (hopefully compassionate) state, which have been the benefactor of many things, in particular education, health and welfare. I again stress that National Service is not limited to military service. Rather, National Service should be seen as a broader community service.

I end with the suggestion that perhaps Australia should consider giving National Service a greater role in society. Indeed, it is partly evident that the Army is now offering a (non deployment) “GAP year” for school-leavers (albiet with the ulterior motive of recruitment).