MENTAL health professionals have come out against the presence of children on the campaign trail in the run-up to the August 27 polls, citing not only the potential for physical harm, but also the reinforcement of a partisan mentality among the population.

“I started to go to political meetings from 12 and what it has done is to reinforce in me allegiance to a particular political party,” said noted psychiatrist Dr Wendel Abel, a consultant at the University Hospital of the West Indies. “One would have liked to have grown up to be a more critical human being, who sees behind the narrow confines of a particular political party.”

Children today – several of whom have been observed in the colours of one party or other in recent weeks – are, he said, at similar risk.

“(The messages) are not only subliminal. They are also a lot of overt messages – the cursing and the tracing; the display of inappropriate behaviours that are adult; the use of drugs, such as cannabis,” he said. “We take too many things for granted in this country and we must place greater attention on the development of our children. We must ensure that their exposure is developmentally appropriate, and we should, at the highest level, put systems in place to ensure our children are protected and safeguarded.”

Psychologist Dr Sidney McGill agreed.

“Kids learn from their superiors who they feel are far more experienced and who they look up to for guidance,” McGill told the Sunday Observer. “So you will find that a lot of these youngsters, because of early initiation into party politics, will become adherents to the party, especially if the experience is very pleasant, meaning if they get the free lunch, beer, the camaraderie, the fun and the exhilaration. All of those are positives that will make someone become an adherent for a very long time, and it would take something very traumatic for that to change because it is now an emotional thing more than a cognitive thing.”

Added the psychologist: “In other words, when they view the party, they view it in an emotional way so that it is not what the party can do for the country, but what the party can do for me.”

A second psychologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that while there was nothing innately wrong with having a child at a political rally, problems would arise were there to be incidents of violence or displays of unsavoury behaviour by adults present.

“I am thinking that for the children there, it is a festive occasion for them. They would see it more as an outing, and something they are enjoying with their parents,” said the psychologist. “So they are seeing their parents, but it is not in a negative way unless there is hostility and unless they see parties fighting against each other. That would be the downside to that.”

Like Abel and McGill, however, the psychologist noted the potential for reinforcing the long-held divisive partisan approach to politics in Jamaica.

“What would come out of that is a socialisation in terms of partisan politics – ‘I am JLP or PNP regardless’. What it could be doing is really creating a narrow-mindedness in terms of the children not being open to difference. And this is what breeds the violence,” she told the Sunday Observer.

“People are not reasoning things through. It is not a case of ‘this party is not performing so I am going to have them ousted’. Instead, they would be looking at it from a die-hearted approach.”

For McGill, the presence of children on the campaign trail is a definite ‘no-no’, bearing in mind the potential for not only psychological but also physical harm.

“I watch them (adults on the campaign trail), and you see them hanging from the vehicles in a precarious way. It is a kind of herd mentality, and people do things they wouldn’t do normally. They take all kinds of risks they would not otherwise take,” he said. “In the whole merry-making and with the political violence and so on, you want only people who are sane and sober to be engaging in the political process. Certainly, children, by virtue of their inexperience and age, should not be a part of this thing at all.”

In fact, he said the situation is such that legislation should be put in place to bar children’s participation in political activities.

“I am thinking that there needs to be some kind of legislation making it unlawful to have children on the bandwagon because of the kinds of risk it creates for them. They should be at their homes,” McGill said. “The questions are: Do the children understand? Can they make good judgments and make decisions on what party is the better party? Are they of voting age? If they are not, then they should not be there. They should be doing something that is far more relative and productive.”

Abel, meanwhile, noted that children’s participation in such political activities, even if only as observers, takes away from the time that should be allotted for their involvement in behaviour conducive to their development.

“Children are expected to play, to be engaged in their school work, to be exposed to recreational activities appropriate to their developmental stage and I don’t think involvement in politics is really one of those things,” he said. “There are other recreational activities appropriate for their stage of development.”

Children’s advocate Mary Clarke, for her part, said she had received no reports of children at political rallies, or in motorcades. But she said it may be better to have children present with parents at such activities than to leave them at home.

“If parents are going to a meeting, it is like you’re going to church and you take the children. When you think of the safety of the children, the child is safe with the parents at church or citizens’ associations meeting and so that is better than being left at home to be abused,” Clarke told the Sunday Observer.

She noted, however, that she would seek to have the matter investigated to determine whether children were being put at risk of harm.

Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) in charge of intelligence, Charles Scarlett, said the police were concerned at the presence of children on the political campaign trail, but said there was no law restricting their presence there.

“It is a concern, but beyond hoping that good sense would prevail there is no law to prevent these children from attending these meetings,” said Scarlett. “Our response is limited to public appeals and the breach of the law regarding public meetings.”

Against this background, he said that it was up to parents to decide whether they were putting their children at risk by having them present, whether as observers or as active participants.

“We operate in a democracy and people have choices, and when they make choices they must be prepared to accept the consequences of the choices,” said Scarlett. “I certainly would not take my young child, in the present environment, to a political meeting. That is not to say that I believe that in every instant there will be an incident. I am not suggesting there should be a ban, but the guiding principle should be ‘is it an environment that puts my child at risk?’ That should guide the decision to expose a child or a teenage person to a campaign meeting or a motorcade.”