The debate surrounding Germany’s evolving conscription model intensified this week as Schleswig-Holstein’s Minister President Daniel Günther publicly dismissed calls for a national referendum on the issue, championed by his counterpart in Saxony, Michael Kretschmer. Günther’s rejection underscores a growing rift within the ruling CDU regarding the direction of Germany’s defense policy and the role of direct citizen input.
Speaking to RTL and n-tv’s “Frühstart” program, Günther articulated a core argument against the proposed referendum: the presence of elected officials. “I am not a big supporter of referendums at all” he stated, emphasizing the expectation from the populace is for proactive governance. “The expectation is more that we get on with it, do something, move our country forward”. This positioning implicitly questions Kretschmer’s rationale, which proponents suggest aims to gauge public sentiment amidst considerable political maneuvering surrounding the new conscription framework.
While Günther acknowledged the recent agreement on the new model as “an important sign that clarity has now been created” he swiftly pivoted to advocate for a broader, gender-inclusive mandatory service obligation. His vision extends beyond the currently debated framework, suggesting a long-term ambition to institute a true conscription policy encompassing both men and women. “At the end of the day, a conscription policy also means a service obligation in our country” he pointed out, hinting at the societal commitment inherent in mandatory military service.
The clash highlights a potentially significant internal CDU disagreement. While Kretschmer’s call for a referendum may represent a desire to demonstrate greater democratic engagement and perhaps subtly challenge the current trajectory of defense reform, Günther’s stance reflects a more traditional view of representative democracy and a call for action from the established political apparatus. The long-term implications for the CDU’s internal dynamics and Germany’s evolving defense posture remain to be seen, but the debate underscores the complexity of navigating contentious policy shifts in a climate of heightened geopolitical uncertainty.