The general obligation to do military service in Serbia was introduced in the second half of the 19th century with the national standing army. The authors show that this obligation has played an important role in the development of the Serbian strategic culture in the young modern Serbian state, but also in encouraging the Serbian military and political elite to hear the "whisper" of the Serbian social character and understand those structures of national culture that are important, perhaps determinative, for what is today called strategic culture. The development of the Serbian strategic culture has been considered through the analysis of the actions of two differently directed, but complementary currents, one being marked as elitist, and the other one as structuralist. Regardless of the obvious differences, both currents are important for the establishment of the Serbian military doctrine, at the dawn of the 20th century, before the historical storm of the Balkan wars and the First World War. The obligation to do military service was maintained until the Decision on the suspension of the obligation to do military service, which was passed by the National Assembly in December 2010. Having in mind that the Republic of Serbia has made the decision to be military neutral, the authors suggest that the reconsideration of the decision to suspend the obligation to do military service is a logical consequence of this choice. The decision on military neutrality requires not only that others (the international community) respect such a decision of a state, but also the respect within the state itself. This means that a state that aspires to neutrality does not give up on defending its own values or handing them over to the others at the mercy and/or protection, but establishes (or preserves) the ability to credibly defend its identity and values. The burden of the consequences of this decision is even harder because it does not count on military alliances. The neutral countries in Europe base their ability of credible defense mainly on the concept of total defense, but it also implies a large number of citizens trained for the military tasks and the tasks of civil protection, which calls for the obligation to do military service. At the same time, military service is the best way for citizens to understand the impact of the decision on military neutrality, but also to accept it as their own free choice and a part of a collective identity. Thus, the obligation to do military service remains an important fulcrum point of the state in actively shaping its strategic culture.

The interference of the military in politics in a state is indisputably disastrous for its democracy. However, even the "too tight grip" of civil control of the military can be dangerous for a society, if its result is suboptimal or misused military power. The purpose of civil and democratic control of the military is to create a social environment in which the military accepts democratic values and does not pose a threat to the functioning of democracy, while maintaining a high level of professional efficiency and integrity. Therefore, it is necessary to simultaneously find a solution to the civil-military paradox and preserve the professional autonomy of officers from the challenges that come from the sphere of politics. Starting from Huntington's theory of civil-military relations, using a case study and the hypothetico-deductive method, this paper shows that the autonomy of the military profession is one of the conditions for proper functioning of civil and democratic control of the military, and that respecting and strengthening professionalism of officers is a necessary condition for preserving and developing the military capabilities to successfully carry out its missions and tasks. The understanding of civil and democratic control of the military as a process by which a dynamic balance between its participants is achieved is also propagated.

No abstract