The decision to demilitarize started from a proposal to put more money into education and healthcare by the then Defense Minister Edgar Cardona, who passed it to the Interior minister Alvaro Ramos and then, taken to the constitutional assembly by the provisional President at the time, Jose Figueres Ferrer.

But even though Costa Rica has no Army, it has a special police force, officially called the Public Force of Costa Rica (Fuerza Pública). It was established in 1996 by the Ministry of Public Security to perform law enforcement, policing, and border patrol tasks. The force’s motto is “God, Fatherland, and Honor.”

The Effects of Costa Rica not having an Army

The budget previously dedicated to sustaining the Costa Rica Army is put into other aspects of the society like education and health care.

This, in turn, allows for improved political, economic, and social stability. New schools and hospitals lowered the country’s infant mortality and heightened the literacy rate.

Today, Costa Rica’s infant mortality rate is the second-lowest in the region, and the literacy rate is 98%. It also has a higher life expectancy, averaging 80 years old. So, overall, the standard of living has increased.

In fact, in 2012, based on the Happy Planet Index, it was the happiest country in the world!

Population of 5 million.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Costa Rica is the only country in the world whose constitution forbids a national army. Instead, they make do with 560 varieties of butterflies, 830 species of birds and 1200 kinds of orchid. Isn’t that the kind of country you’d like to live in?

    – Stephen Fry in the first series of QI.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Man, Stephen Fry has had such a positive influence in my life lmao I first saw him in V for Vendetta, then I found his debates about religion. Really formed me at a young age. Really appreciate that guy.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Stephen Fry literally saved my life by prompting me to get the proper diagnosis with what was going on with me psychologically:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry:_The_Secret_Life_of_the_Manic_Depressive

        I believe it’s on YouTube these days, but I just happened to see his name (I already knew who he was) and download a torrent. My whole life suddenly made sense to me. I was in tears, but it got me to a psychiatrist and got me onto proper medication. I’m glad what I went through is not as severe as what he’s been through, but it definitely could have been the end of me one day…

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Fun fact: the United States doesn’t have a permanent standing Army either. At least, according to the Constitution it doesn’t.

    • delirious_owl@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The US doesn’t supply weapons to countries comittinf war crimes or genocides. At least, according to its laws it doesn’t.

      Unfortunately, the US government constantly violates its own (constitutional) law

    • ferret@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I don’t think it is typical for a nation’s armies to be constitutionally prescribed, just in this case their constitution explicitly forbids it.

    • darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I don’t believe this claim to be true. If you insist that it really is true, could you please point to the exact place in the US constitution that prohibits a permanent standing army?

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12:

        “The Congress shall have Power… To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

        That “no appropriation… for a longer term than two years” part was intended to prevent the establishment of a permanent standing army.

        You can also tell that they really meant it because of the contrast with the next clause…

        The Congress shall have power… To provide and maintain a Navy;

        …which pointedly does not contain any such limitation.


        (Also, the real point of the Second Amendment was that the militia – i.e. all able-bodied male citizens between age 17 and 45– should be “well regulated” (which at the time meant “well-trained”) and thus prepared to defend the security of the United States themselves. In other words, it was further reinforcement of the idea not to have a permanent professional army.)

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          What about Clause 14, though?

          To make rules for Government and Regulation of the LAND and naval forces

          Or is that just relating to, what I’m understanding as, when the government calls for the militia to “stand”? As in Clause 16.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I mean clause 12 does give Congress the power to raise a real army, it’s just that it’s not supposed to stick around for more than two years at a time. In other words, it’s supposed to be a temporary thing during wartime and then go away afterward.

            There’s no conflict with clause 14 because it’s about Congress’ power to govern and regulate the army during that two-year (or less) period while it’s raised (as well as to govern and regulate the navy all the time).

            Seems to me like Clause 14 might not apply to the militia mainly because Clause 16 would cover it more specifically (e.g. delineating the separation of governance between militia under state control vs. militia under Federal control).