On Wednesday, the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag) decided on the government's bill 2025/26:279. It contains several proposals aimed at better manning our armed forces and, by extension, strengthening the defence of Sweden and our allies. One of these proposals is that reserve officers will be granted a statutory right to leave of absence, something the Swedish Reserve Officers' Association (Förbundet Reservofficerarna) has campaigned for over a long period. It is only positive that we are now leaving behind a period of uncertainty, for both reserve officers and their civilian employers, about what applies in this matter.

A less welcome piece of news is that officers, after ending their employment, will continue to be subject to conscription until the end of the year in which they turn 70. For those who have not been officers, conscription continues to apply at most until the end of the year in which they turn 47. This is nothing other than a punishment for those who have already done so much for Sweden's defence capability.

Parliament is essentially united on this issue. Despite sharp criticism during the consultation process from us and the Swedish Officers' Association (Officersförbundet), only the Left Party expressed any reservations about former officers remaining liable for conscription until the age of 70. Support for the measure is justified by the argument that the competence is needed. We agree with that. But officers' competence is not retained through the threat of imprisonment, but through fair terms of employment so that officers want to, and are able to, remain in their positions. Here, the Swedish Armed Forces and the state as an employer have a long way to go. That journey begins with ensuring that all officer competence is retained by offering former officers employment as reserve officers.

When Sweden is at war, most restrictions on freedom can be justified. Few former officers capable of serving would likely refuse to step up in such a situation. But the extended conscription obligation also applies in peacetime. After the turn of the year, the Swedish Armed Forces will be able to call up officers who have chosen to end their employment for refresher training as conscripts. They would be forced to carry out a job they themselves chose to resign from, or one which the Armed Forces deemed them not needed for.

As conscription is now being extended further, we believe it is time for Sweden's politicians to reflect on conscription and how it should be used. Conscription is, after all, more than tearing more or less willing 18 to 20 year olds away from their everyday lives to undergo basic training. It also means that we compel, ultimately under threat of imprisonment, ordinary people in all professions and industries, to undergo refresher training from time to time. During compulsory service, compensation is paid at 90 percent of sickness benefit qualifying income (SGI), but no more than the equivalent of one month's salary of 49,333 Swedish kronor. The maximum duration for refresher training is 240 days, almost eight months. That is a long time to be torn away from family and social life, on top of loss of income and service that often involves working conditions no employee would otherwise be permitted to endure. Is that reasonable?

A first step would be to limit the extended conscription obligation to apply only in the event of war or the threat of war. If that is not done, a suitable measure would be to offer employment as reserve officers to all former officers needed in the wartime organisation. That way, at least those affected by the now-extended obligation would have the option of returning as employees rather than as conscripts.

But the change also suggests that it is time for a broader review of the conditions for conscripts, after the completion of basic training (or officer employment). It is a relatively small section of the population that is being asked to bear a heavy burden for the sake of society as a whole.

Among people born in the 1990s, there are hardly any conscripts. Among those born in the 2000s, around 10 percent will be conscripts. The situation for those born in the 1980s and earlier will depend on how they are called up for refresher training, but even here the figure is a maximum of around 10 percent.

To the extent that we are to build military capability on conscripts, it is high time we gave them fair terms. A person wrongfully deprived of their liberty is, according to the practice of the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern), compensated between 20,000 and 30,000 Swedish kronor per month for the suffering the deprivation of liberty entails. A person deprived of their liberty in order to undergo refresher training receives nothing. That is not reasonable. Eliminate the loss of income, compensate for the restriction of freedom that the obligation entails, and use employed personnel for peacetime needs.

It is time for politics to reflect on the price of conscription.


Magnus Konradsson,

Chairman of the Swedish Reserve Officers' Association (Förbundet Reservofficerarna)