Anchoring Sweden’s Post-conscript Military: Insights From Elites in the Political and Military Realm

• Published date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X18755107
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Anchoring Sweden’s

Post-conscript Military:

Insights From Elites in

the Political and Military

Realm

Claes Wallenius

1

, Carina Brandow

1

,

Anna Karin Berglund

1

, and Emma Jonsson

1

Abstract

The universal nature of conscription ties or anchors broad segments of society to

the military. What happens to societal anchoring after the draft ends? Using in-depth

interviews with two groups of elites, this article explores factors that promote and

hinder the Swedish Military’s societal anchoring post-conscription. The first group

consisted of 18 executives at the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) headquarters with

strategic positions in relation to societal anchoring. The second group consisted of

15 representatives from the corresponding political level: members of the parlia-

mentary Committee on Defense and their officials. The interviews were semi-

structured and analyzed according to a grounded theory-inspired approach. Main

themes concerning obstacles were the public’s low interest and dated knowledge, an

unclear political debate resulting in vague expectations concerning the SAF, as well

as unclear responsibility for informing the public, and confidence gaps between the

military and the political elite.

Keywords

civil–military relations, defense policy, democracy, governmental organization,

military organization, public policy

1

Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, Swedish Defence University, Karlstad, Sweden

Corresponding Author:

Claes Wallenius, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, Swedish Defence University,

Karolinen, Karlstad SE-651 80, Sweden.

Email: claes.wallenius@fhs.se

Armed Forces & Society

2019, Vol. 45(3) 452-471

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X18755107

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Factors such as the Armed Forces’ volume reduction and the transformation from

a conscript based to an all-volunteered-based force have led to a less obvious societal

anchoring of the Swedish military defense (Nilsson, Jonsson, Fors Brandebo, &

Larsson, 2012). This may have negative effects on the quantity and quality of the

manpower supply but also on the public understanding of the Armed Forces. There-

fore, it is important to gain more knowledge of the present status of anchoring, as

well as its causes and effects.

1

Many countries have regular surveys and opinion pollsabout their armed forces. A

number of differentconcepts are measured, for example,public support, trust, respect,

pride, public understanding, and public endorsement of defense spending. These

concepts do not necessarily have the same definition but mayto some extent overlap.

Most recent research shows that the armed forces have a high level of public

confidence and support. This is the case for the U.S. military, the UK armed forces,

and the Israel Defense Forces (Hill, Wong, & Gerras, 2013; Hines, Gribble, Wessely,

Dandecker,& Fear, 2014; Tiargan-Orr& Eran-Jona, 2016). The supportfor the SAF is

relatively good, while confidence in the defense policy is lower (Berndtsson, Dande-

ker, & Yde´n, 2015; Jonsson, Nilsson, & Larsson, 2011; Yde´n & Berndtsson, 2012,

2014). In the UK and Sweden,the support for international missions, like Afghanistan,

is lower than thesupport for the national defense(Hines et al., 2014; Yde´n & Berndts-

son, 2012). Factors that strengthen the support are the force’s being perceived to be

competent, fair,and accountable, a present conflict, and/or an apparent national threat

(Hill, Wong, & Gerras, 2013; Jonsson et al., 2011; Tiargan-Orr & Eran-Jona, 2016).

Concerning knowledge about the armed forces, Swedish research indicates that

people claim to have sufficient knowledge of the SAF, but the knowledge is often

proved to be limited, traditional, and stereotyped. Overall, research has shown an

unjustified trust, implying that people do not really know what they trust (Jonsson

et al., 2011; see also Nilsson et al., 2012).

Another related field of research is the relation between the civil and military sec-

tions of society ( see, e.g., Burk, 2 002; Feaver, 199 9). Most scholars wi thin this field

seem to agree that there is a civil–military gap, but there is no consensus about its

components (see,e.g., Szayna et al., 2007). Avant (1998) distinguishes between three

categoriesof gaps or crises in the Americancivil–military relations:the level of military

influenceon policy, the degree to whichthe military is representativeof society, and the

amount of friction between civilians and the military in day-to-day interactions.

Rahbek-Clemmensen et al. (2012) argue that there are fourcivil–military gaps:

1. Cultural gap: Value differences between military and civilian populations.

2. Demographics gap: differences in the composition of the military and civil-

ian populations.

3. Policy preference gap: differences in the policy objectives pursued by mil-

itary and civilian elites.

4. Institutional gap: differences between military and civilian institutions.

Wallenius et al. 453