Conscientious Objection: From Political Sovereignty to Public Enemy

Published on 11 April 2026

'The elite that is not prepared to defend their position at any cost necessary is destined to fall.' — sociologist Vilfredo Pareto (Zeitlin, I.M., Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory)

Concrete manifestations of this principle are becoming increasingly visible across the West. This week, the United States announced that as of December 2026, young men will be automatically registered for the draft when they turn 18. In Germany, authorities announced last week that any man under 45 who wishes to leave the country for more than three months must first obtain permission from the military. Two weeks ago, in the Netherlands, the government voted against permanently suspending mandatory military draft — meaning that in a 'state of emergency' (such as war), conscription can be reactivated in a relatively fast and easy way. Despite a successful voluntary recruitment campaign, mandatory conscription is apparently viewed as a necessary backup measure.

Given recent legislative changes that significantly limit freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly, including the proposed law criminalising the ‘glorification of terrorism’ and expressions of solidarity with designated ‘terrorist organisations’, and proposed amendments to the Public Assemblies Act, a clear consistent pattern is taking shape: the right to political dissent, anti-imperialist resistance and international solidarity is systematically being dismantled. Mussolini's famous saying: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo stato" ("Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state") is becoming reality. Reintroduction of mandatory military service (conscription) is a logical next step.

Under the so-called 'Swedish model' of selective conscription, between 5 and 10 percent of civilians registered would actually be called upon. Those who fail to report will be classified as 'deserters' under law and face criminal penalties — in wartime, penalties can go as high as five years imprisonment or a fine of €22,500. Those who object to military service may invoke the Wet Gewetensbezwaren Militaire Dienst(WGMD, the Conscientious Objection to Military Service Act), however, this law applies only to those who are principally opposed to all violence; i.e. pacifists or religious objectors. Those with concrete political objections, such as anti-imperialist politics, opposition to a specific war or to NATO as a whole, are explicitly unprotected. So-called totaalweigeraars (objectors in totality), who refuse both military and alternative civilian service as an act of political resistance, fall entirely outside the law's protection. In wartime, political sovereignty is a crime punishable by prison time.

But what does democracy mean when the state can coerce its citizens into participating in illegal wars, like Trump's current crusade against Iran?

The last time Dutch citizens refused military service in large numbers on political grounds was during the Indonesian Independence War (1945–1949), using slogans like 'geen man en geen cent voor militarisme'  (no man, no cent for militarism). At the time, the Dienstweigeringswet (Conscientious Objection Act of 1923) was in force. Under this law, exemption was granted only to those who could demonstrate the conviction 'that he may not kill his fellow man', i.e. the scope of the law included objection based on religion or ethical objections to killing. Out of 1,382 formal applications, 769 were granted (A. Weijzen, 2015, De Indië-weigeraars, p. 59), and these concerned almost exclusively religious and ethical grounds. Refusal on the basis of opposition to the war itself, or to colonialism, was dismissed a priori. Conscientious objectors citing political grounds were forced to fight or face prison. Political objectors were kept in strict isolation from regular troops as allowing a conscientious objector near other soldiers risked ideological contagion. With the exception of combat situations, autonomous soldiers were of no use to the state apparatus.

The Indië-weigeraars (conscientious objectors to the Indonesian Independence War) threatened the military at its core: they not only challenged the authority of the military apparatus but also the legitimacy of what the Dutch state euphemistically called the 'police actions' (Indonesian Independence War) — a colonial war by any other name. It is no surprise that socialists and communists were overrepresented in this group. The response of the political elite, including the media, was a smear campaign: Political objectors were dismissed as 'too simple-minded' to judge whether foreign policy was right or wrong, as 'feeble-minded victims' of communist propaganda, or as psychologically disturbed. Military psychiatrists frequently cited an 'unresolved Oedipus complex' to discredit their masculinity (A. Weijzen, 2015, De Indië-weigeraars). In reality, many refused on the basis of political analysis and conviction, a clear indication of intellectual autonomy and political maturity.

Decades later, in 2013, the Dutch Supreme Court acknowledged that the facts and circumstances that had since come to light would indeed have constituted 'serious conscientious objections' (Herzieningsuitspraak dienstweigering Nederlands-Indië: HR 25 June 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:73, no. 13/00067 H). The state prosecuted people for refusing a war it would later implicitly recognise as immoral. Since these rulings, however, the essence and scope of the conscientious objection law has remained largely unchanged, compensation and rehabilitation for the Indies objectors never materialised.

In the 1970s and 1980s, a new generation of political objectors emerged in the Netherlands, organising under names like Onkruit ('Weeds — they'll never stamp us out') and the Vereniging Dienstweigeraars(Association of Conscientious Objectors). They refused the draft not because they opposed all killing on principle, but because they objected to the military apparatus itself, to NATO, and to nuclear weapons. They read the WGMD as a form of 'repressive tolerance': the law protected the pacifist who posed no threat to the system, whilst criminalising free citizens who dared to challenge the political system itself (C. Boot, Het leger onder vuur. De Koninklijke Landmacht en haar critici 1945–1989, Amsterdam: Boom, 2015).

Forty years later, military draft, once again, is a topic of debate and speculation. A Dutch conscript called up tomorrow does not sign up ‘in abstracts’. He or she places their body and life at the disposal of an undemocratic war machine, fighting for allies who openly cite oil interests and imperial dominance as their war aims. Those who refuse because they reject imperialist foreign policy are not in scope of, like the Indies objectors and the total objectors before them, legal protection. Political sovereignty is still treated as a threat to the state.

As of yet, we do not know how the WGMD will be applied if the Netherlands were to find itself at war. Historical precedents, however, speak for themselves. As do recent legislative proposals, curtailing freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly, making the state's intentions explicit: international solidarity will be punished, complicity enforced. Those who expect legal protection are ignoring history and the facts. We find ourselves at the beginning of a totalitarian timeline: the forced merger of citizens with the state. An example of an advanced totalitarian state is Israel, where every citizen is forced to join the military and subsequently is forced to commit war crimes in the name of the state.

Conscientious objection is a legitimate and effective way to refuse complicity, to build counter-power, and to organise international solidarity.

The state knows we have a world to win.