Critics of the government's proposed civil service plan argue that the current approach is fundamentally flawed due to its lack of transparency and potential for misuse. By developing these policies in relative secrecy, the government risks alienating the very organizations that would be responsible for managing the program on the ground. This top-down strategy ignores the expertise of social associations that have been managing the consequences of the 2011 conscription suspension for over a decade.
There is a significant concern that the government intends to use a new civil service as a low-cost substitute for professional staffing. If the state relies on young, temporary service members to fill roles that require specialized training and fair wages, it could undermine the professionalization of the social sector. Critics warn that this could lead to a decline in the quality of care, as volunteers cannot replace the expertise of trained professionals.
Furthermore, the financial burden remains a major point of contention. Social associations have made it clear that they cannot be expected to bear the administrative and financial costs of a government-mandated program. If the state does not provide sufficient funding, the program could become a financial drain on non-profit organizations, forcing them to divert resources from their core missions to manage the logistics of the new service.
Finally, the political process itself is under fire. Opponents argue that the government is attempting to revive a form of mandatory service through the back door without a proper public mandate. By avoiding a transparent, open debate, the administration is failing to address the fundamental questions of whether such a service is truly necessary or if the resources would be better spent on improving working conditions for existing social sector employees.