By Assania, ELFI, S.PD.I.,M.PD
The increasing conflict between traditional discipline and contemporary perspectives on child well-being has come to light as a result of the recent suggestion by Indonesian politician Dedi Mulyadi to send unruly youngsters to military-style camps. The once radical approach is now gaining popularity as a possible remedy for juvenile delinquency, raising questions about the extent to which a country should enforce discipline. The notion of turning military barracks into behavioral reform centers compels the Indonesian people to face a crucial question: are we breaking or fixing our children in the face of growing youth misbehavior?. There are three effects  of military barracks, such as children becoming obedient because of fear, social stigma,  and child rights violations.
The first effect of barracks military camp is obedience due to fear. The military barracks left by Dedi Mulyadi have recently attracted public attention (Kay, 2025). Instead of getting many benefits, placing children in military barracks does make them obedient, but because they are afraid of the pressure they will face, this allows them to repeat the same thing after leaving the military (Solkan A, 2025).Educating children through fear can hinder their psychological development and reduce their ability to make responsible decisions independently (Gershoff, E. T, 2013). Long-term solutions should focus on building empathy, self-control, and critical thinking through an inclusive and supportive educational environment, not through fear-based discipline.
The second effect of barracks military camp is social stigma. Children who are put in military barracks will get a bad, ugly, and negative stigma from their environment. This can affect the life and mentality of the child, they might be branded and labeled as naughty children (Link, B. G., 2001). This labeling can lead to social isolation, discrimination from peers, and even decreased self-esteem (Crocker J, 1998). Once a child internalizes such a label, they may begin to believe that they truly are inherently bad or beyond help, which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy (Becker, H. S,1963). Instead of being encouraged to grow and change, they may feel stuck in a negative identity imposed by their surroundings (Gershoff, E. T. 2017). In the long term, this stigma can interfere with their education, future relationships, and overall mental well-being.
The third effect of barracks military camps is child rights violations. The experts from Airlangga University warned that this program has the potential to violate children's rights, especially if it is not based on mature studies and does not involve children's participation in decision-making (Lansdown , .G, 2005). When decisions about disciplinary measures are made without consulting the affected children or understanding their individual circumstances, it disregards their agency and autonomy, both of which are key principles in child protection frameworks such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 2013). Children deserve to be guided with care, not subjected to institutionalized discipline that may prioritize control over compassion (Killen, M., 2015). Therefore, any policy involving minors must be grounded in child development science, uphold ethical standards, and ensure the child’s voice is meaningfully considered.
Some argue that sending kids to stay in barracks military positively affects them, for example, their discipline, sense of responsibility, and behavioral changes to become better individuals and kids (Kazdin,.A.E, 2005). The advocates of this view believe that structured environments, strict routines, and demanding obedience can cure negative attitudes and provide individuals with a sense of order (Ghersoff, 2016). However, even though discipline and responsibility are important values, achieving them through fear-inducing measures may not guarantee long-term personal growth (Ryan R.M, 2000). If the root causes of a child's behavioral problems—whether they be trauma, lack of support in the home, or emotional problems—are not dealt with, then any behavioral improvement may be temporary at best (Loeber, R, 2012). Sustained behavioral change comes not from external coercion but from internal understanding and personal motivation, which are best fostered through mentoring, not threat or punishment.
In conclusion, sending kids to barracks can be considered; there are drawbacks in the form of children becoming obedient because of fear, social stigmatization, and violation of children's rights. There are benefits also on the other side, for example, improvement in discipline, a greater sense of responsibility, and behavioral changes towards becoming good people and kids. Still, any intervention that involves children should prioritize their psychological safety, rights, and well-being in the long run. Structure and discipline are important, but they must be offered through supportive, child-sensitive, and inclusive methods. Stakeholders need to assess whether the approach is evidence-based, includes professional guidance, and leaves room for engaging children in decision-making before taking up military-style programs. In the end, the goal should not only be to control behavior but also to form character in a way that prepares children to thrive socially and emotionally.
References:
Kay (2025). Pro Kontra Kebijakan Pendidikan Demul: Barak Militer Hingga Wisuda. CNN Indonesia
Solkan ahmad,(2025). Ini Dampak Negatif dan Positif Pendidikan Anak di Barak Militer Menurut Psikolog. NU Online Terverifikasi oleh Pers.
Gershoff, E. T. (2013). "Spanking and Child Development: We Know Enough Now to Stop Hitting Our Children." Child Development Perspectives, 7(3), 133-137.
