POLITICS: WHY DOES MENTAL HEALTH KEEP REAPPEARING ACROSS NAPS' ADMINISTRATIONS— PROGRESS OR REPEATING CYCLES?

By Faith Ajewole

Some ideas appear once and disappear with an administration. Others return repeatedly, resurfacing in manifestos, speeches, and promises across different tenures. Within the Psychology department, one theme appears to belong to the latter category: mental health.

Across successive administrations and electoral promises, mental health advocacy has consistently emerged as a central focus. The recently concluded Legacy Team under Mr. Samuel Akinwande pursued it through external advocacy efforts such as the Psych Walk and awareness outreach programmes. The current Vice President seeks to establish a Mental Health Team, while the Assistant General Secretary proposes a Mental Health Awareness Committee aimed at improving awareness and strengthening student engagement, as regards mental health.

Although the approaches differ slightly, the underlying destination appears strikingly similar. The question now becomes: Is this repeated emphasis evidence of growing institutional consciousness, or are successive administrations simply rebranding similar ideas without fundamentally changing outcomes?

A closer examination reveals that all three approaches share common objectives. The Legacy Team directed its efforts outward. Through Psych Walks, distribution of mental health pamphlets, and awareness campaigns, mental health advocacy was projected beyond the department to wider communities. NAPSITES, in this instance, became the advocates and providers of awareness.

The current Vice President's proposal shifts the focus inward. Rather than making NAPSITES the ones providing support externally, the intention is to make them the recipients of a support system through the proposed Department of Psychology Mental Health First Aid Team. Here, students become direct beneficiaries of structured intervention.

Similarly, the Assistant General Secretary's proposed Mental Health Awareness Committee follows a comparable path. Through campaigns, informational content, and counselling awareness sessions, the initiative aims to create support structures that directly benefit students.

The distinction therefore lies not in purpose but in approach, all three initiatives seek to normalize mental health conversations, increase awareness, reduce stigma, and improve psychological well-being among students.

Some may argue that the repeated focus on mental health merely exists because of the fact that we are Psychology students. However, reducing it to professional identity alone may oversimplify the matter, because Psychology students operate within the same realities affecting many university students; academic pressure, financial constraints, uncertainty about the future, burnout, emotional stress, and social struggles.

Perhaps administrations keep revisiting the issue because they perceive gaps that previous efforts have not entirely filled. However, similarity can become problematic when continuity is absent. Instead of repeatedly creating new structures, there should be an institutionalised structure, that is recognised and built on over time to solidify them.

For instance, the proposed Mental Health team and Mental Health Awareness Committee immediately raises questions, like:

• Will both bodies exist independently?

• Will their responsibilities overlap?

• Will one eventually become redundant?

• How different are awareness campaigns from advocacy campaigns already carried out last year? If that of last year was properly nurtured and institutionalised, there wouldn't have been a need to initiate a new plan entirely, while collapsing the previous ones.

• Is there a risk of creating multiple committees with similar functions but limited effectiveness?

• Without careful integration, what appears as innovation can become duplication. Instead of strengthening existing foundations, multiple parallel structures could emerge, competing for attention and resources.

The challenge therefore may not be creating another committee. The challenge may be creating a sustainable system.

Furthermore, an equally important concern lies on the receiving end: students themselves.

Students have repeatedly been exposed to mental health campaigns, awareness programmes, and advocacy initiatives. Yet, to what extent have psychology students become more willing to advocate for mental health or seek help when facing mental health challenges themselves?

Awareness does not automatically produce action. Students may applaud programmes, repost flyers, attend events, and engage with campaigns online, yet still avoid seeking professional help when they actually need it.

The previous Psych Walk reportedly recorded participation from less than 10 percent of Psychology students. While attendance alone may not fully determine impact, it raises questions about engagement and the extent to which students are connecting with these initiatives.

What Current Leaders Can Do Differently:

If current office holders hope to avoid repeating previous cycles, several adjustments may become necessary:

1. Move beyond campaigns toward measurable outcomes.

   
   

2. Instead of focusing only on programme execution, indicators should be established:

. Number of students reached

. Number seeking support

. Student feedback

. Follow-up outcomes

3. They should also merge efforts where possible; rather than separate committees with overlapping functions, collaboration may create a stronger and more sustainable structure.

   
   

4. Create institutional documentation:

handbooks, operational frameworks, and transition documents can highly ensure continuity across administrations.

5. Prioritize accessibility:

Students are more likely to use systems that are simple, confidential, and easy to access.

In closing, the repeated focus on mental health suggests increasing recognition of student well-being as an important issue rather than an afterthought. But, if these initiatives continue to exist primarily as annual promises rather than evolving systems. It doesn't really hit the mark.

NAPS has already, sufficiently demonstrated that it can advocate. The greater challenge now is institutionalization. Otherwise, future administrations may continue discussing the same issue, creating new committees, and launching familiar campaigns, while ultimately arriving at the same place they started.