Should children be involved in political campaigning?

Tamil Nadu’s election campaign triggered debate after TVK founder and actor Joseph C. Vijay appealed to young people to persuade their parents and elders to vote for his party’s whistle symbol. The concern was not simply that children had political opinions. It was that they might be used to deliver a campaign message designed by adults.

Andrew Sesuraj said many videos showed children arguing with family members at home. He also found voters who said they had chosen the whistle because their son, daughter, or granddaughter had asked them. The campaign therefore appeared to move from direct political persuasion to pressure within families.

A DMK candidate took the issue to court, arguing that Vijay’s appeal was wrong. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition but criticised involving tender children in elections. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy said Parliament should consider whether such conduct should justify setting aside an election.

“Pester power” is the influence created when children repeatedly ask adults for something. The article describes it as a familiar method in consumer marketing, where children are encouraged to pressure parents into buying products or making household choices.

The campaign used a similar pathway in politics. Children’s attachment to celebrity actor Vijay created enthusiasm for him and the TVK. Vijay then asked young people to insist that their parents vote for the whistle, comparing the request with pestering adults for a well-known chocolate brand. Videos showed children arguing with family members about the vote.

This matters because the campaign recruited children to carry persuasion into the home. Some adults told Andrew Sesuraj they voted for the whistle because a son, daughter, or granddaughter had asked them. The article presents this as pressure on voting choices, rather than simply a child expressing an independent political view.

The article describes four stages in the influence pathway from a child’s celebrity attachment to an adult’s voting decision. First comes the child’s attachment to a celebrity. That attachment produces enthusiasm. The enthusiasm then becomes repeated requests, known as “pester power.” Finally, those requests put pressure on the parent’s or grandparent’s voting choice.

Anil Pillai sets out this sequence while comparing electoral campaigning with consumer marketing. In both cases, the child’s feelings about a familiar public figure or product become a tool for influencing an adult. The child is not necessarily weighing policies or making an independent argument. Instead, affection and enthusiasm carry the campaign message into the household.

The article gives examples of children urging family members to vote for Vijay and the TVK’s whistle symbol. Some adults said they voted that way because a child asked them. Thus, the pathway has four stages, with the last stage affecting an adult’s electoral decision.

Repeated pressure from children can shift a voting decision away from a voter’s own assessment of a candidate. The adult may choose a symbol because of a family request, rather than because the candidate’s policies or political record have persuaded them. The article presents this as a problem because the emotional relationship is doing the political work.

Andrew Sesuraj said he asked some people on polling day whom they had voted for. They answered that they had voted for the whistle. When he asked why, they said their son, daughter, or granddaughter had asked them. These examples show the effect of repeated requests inside the family.

The article does not claim that every adult changed their vote this way. It shows that the method can influence some decisions. Anil Pillai describes it as recruiting someone the voter loves to carry forward persuasion. That makes the campaign different from directly presenting arguments to the voter.

Political candidates decide how they campaign, including whether to ask children to influence adults. In this case, Vijay appealed to young people to press their parents and elders to vote for the TVK’s whistle symbol. The debate concerns whether candidates should be allowed to use children in this way.

Courts handle challenges under existing law. A DMK candidate argued that Vijay’s appeal was wrong and asked the Madras High Court to act. The court dismissed the petition, so it did not set aside the election. However, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy strongly criticised involving tender children in election activity.

Parliament has the role of considering whether the law should change. The judge said Parliament should examine whether involving children in campaigning should become a ground for setting aside a candidate’s election. The article therefore separates current judicial action from possible future legislative restrictions.

Encouraging children to express their own political views means allowing them to discuss issues that affect them and form their own opinions. Andrew Sesuraj says children’s views about school, food, clothing, games, and play matter because those subjects directly affect their lives. Their words should come from their own experience, not from coaching.

Directing children to repeat an adult’s political message is different. The child becomes a messenger for a candidate or party. In the example discussed, children were encouraged to pressure parents and elders to vote for Vijay and the TVK’s whistle symbol. The political request was set by the campaign, rather than developed independently by the child.

UNICEF’s participation framework distinguishes genuine participation from manipulation and tokenism. The article therefore supports children having a political voice while rejecting their use as instruments of persuasion. The key difference is who owns the view and whether the child is being tutored to deliver it.

Democratic voting depends on people exercising judgment over their choices. Voters need space to consider what candidates offer and decide for themselves. When emotional pressure becomes the main influence, a vote may reflect a family relationship rather than the voter’s own view of the election.

The article describes a clear example. Children who admired celebrity actor Vijay were encouraged to ask parents and elders to vote for his whistle symbol. Andrew Sesuraj found adults who said they voted for the whistle because their son, daughter, or granddaughter had asked them. The pressure came from people they loved, which could make refusal difficult.

This does not mean children should be excluded from politics. The article says they have a right to participate and develop a political voice. The concern is using that voice as a campaign instrument. The judge’s call for Parliament to consider the issue points toward a debate about protecting voter agency while respecting children’s political participation.