Hiding in Plain Sight: What We Have Missed About State-Sponsored Homophobia

In late 2012, as a college student, I attended the screening of Call Me Kuchu, a documentary about the growing anti-LGBT movement in Uganda and the activists trying to turn the rising tide of hate, at Alliance Française in Nairobi. It was a gathering of the typical and expected faces – of young queer-adjacent Kenyans trying on skinny jeans and hair color for the first time, of the straight-laced lawyers and bankers who were raging queens by night but only in the safety of specific watering holes, and of Kenyan activism who were familiar to those of us in the know, through Facebook and WhatsApp groups, and the hush-hush but well attended queer events hosted every so often across the city. 

Also in attendance, much to my surprise was one of my lecturers. She and I had struck up an amazing rapport, mostly because she appreciated honest hard work, was not a fan of brown-nosing, and was excellent at her job. She also secretly reminded me of my mother because of her no-nonsense attitude, and her life as a diplomat’s child and having lived in Italy (yes she spoke Italian) fascinated me all the more. At the time, my world was as expansive as the experiences amassed by those I admired and emulated, so she and the LGBT movement in Kenya represented distinct but similar forms of expansiveness that were overwhelming to fathom. 

After the screening, we reconvened at the steps of Alliance Française to touch base. David Kato, a Ugandan human rights activist, had just been brutally murdered; bludgeoned to death for the unforgivable crime of living openly as a Gay man and advocating for the rights of those like him. The moments leading up to his brutal murder were captured, rather ominously for the documentary, but so was his funeral. Five minutes of the documentary had compressed the life of a man who was alive one moment and dead the next. There was a palpable sense of fear and tension in the air, as some left sniffling into their handkerchiefs. We Kenyan gays had it good, but for how long? The question loomed large, and everyone avoided it. 

“I just don’t understand why they choose to live like that,” my lecturer was saying, referring to the subjects of the documentary. I didn’t understand why she would say such a thing, since, in her matter-of-fact manner, she had questioned me about my sexuality and we went on to have open and –to her- enlightening conversations. Yet here she was posing a question that had undone all the time and energy spent in conversation with her. 

“Because it’s not a choice. They are not gay by choice,” I said, trying not to come off acid-tongued, but I could feel disappointment comingled with frustration rising up my throat. She pushed back that surely if one’s life depended on it (it should never have to) then they could change. Yes, I said, that is what is called living in the closet – it is not changing, it is just living a lie. Then that is better, is it not? Is it ever okay to live a lie? I pointed to myself. I am open about myself but face no immediate danger. Yes, she responded, but that was entirely different because I was different. 

Of “Choice” and Other Buzzwords 

This conversation would be repeated over the years as I came of age as an adult, navigating straight spaces and coming up against opposition, not to me – this was made abundantly clear – but to homosexuality itself. Yes, I stood before these people as a gay man, but I was “different.” They could vouch for me because I had proven that I posed no threat, this threat that was never defined nor explained, outside of it being proscribed in holy texts that no one applied to any other facet of their lives. 

What happened at the Alliance Française the day of the screening was also a microcosm of events and attitudes that would pervade the LGBTQIA+ movement in Africa for the proceeding decade. From the fear that so many of us felt at the proximity of an unfolding battle against queer bodies, to the indolent apathy of our straight counterparts who saw the issue of Queer suffering and our brutalization as a simple issue of choice – choose better. Such conversations never left room for further inquiry, because questions of any kind were seen as an attempt to “push a gay agenda.” What this gay agenda was exactly, no one could explicitly state. 

All I knew was I had people in my life who loved me, or claimed to, who were also very clear that they would take a very dim view if not an entirely violent turn to discovering their child or relative was a member of the “alphabet people.” No offense intended, full offense taken!  

In the years that followed, I and many other Kenyans watched with growing horror as more and more gay Ugandans flowed into the country, recounting their harrowing tales of escape, with many going on to successfully gain asylum in the US, Canada, and Europe. Protests against the potential legalization of gay marriage, as the homo-hysteria from Uganda spread into Kenya, and despite mere gay sex being illegal (the lady doth protest too much, methinks) were interspersed with whataboutthechildrenisms. 

Society was in grave danger should gay people be granted equal legal standing as the straight majority, some were ominously warning. Did it take away from anything that they had? Was marriage, after all, not a contract between two people and the state? If it was indeed God-ordained, was it then not imperative for all heterosexuals to marry and bear children, since the covenant of marriage was so sacred? 

“Well, you know what I mean! I just don’t understand!” 

I have come to believe the hollow cry of “I don’t understand,” from so many regular hetero folks who, far from malice, wonder why the gays opt for such a seemingly sadomasochistic existence. There is a truth in their sentiment that few engage with, and that is, for the most part, no one escapes social sculpting when living under the constant fear of being turfed out of the fluffed-up nest of social acceptance. 

Even the straights have to love acceptably; they have to show an affinity for what they expect society will find appealing; they must also live in less cramped closets of their own making, performing monogamy, religiosity, and patriotism; they too are part of the Narnia crowd, forever escaping to far more expansive internal worlds, and are therefore far less generous about anyone who expects to bring fantastical existence into the real world. Acceptance is not readily available for anyone, much less for anyone who wants it on the merits of the authenticity of their existence. 

As all this was unfolding, and pro- and anti-LGBT activists remained trenchant in their vilification of the opposing side, it became clear that this was less an issue of fact as it was an issue of semantics. It was not that those campaigning for more draconian laws against homosexuals did not understand that they were litigating a victimless crime, it was that they wanted to create an enemy out of a fiction they alone could generate. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni himself is proof of this. 

After commissioning a team of leading physicians and scientists in Uganda to investigate the “root cause” of homosexuality, the president went on to misrepresent the team’s findings that no definitive gene had been found to be responsible for homosexuality and that environmental factors may contribute to one’s sexual orientation.  The report also highlighted the universality of homosexuality in small quantities in every population, meaning that far from being alien to Uganda, homosexuality has always been part and parcel of the country’s culture, both pre-and post-colonial. 

The issue, however, was that many African cultures approached sexuality of any kind conservatively, and controlled sexual behavior whether gay or straight. Sexual exhibitionism of any kind was frowned upon. “Indeed there are undeclared homosexuals in Africa who may not even know it because their cultures never give room for the expression of such behavior,” the report went on to say, while noting that where sexual exhibitionism was frowned upon, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism introduced condemnation, especially of homosexuality.  

Despite the fairly neutral findings presented by the body of experts commissioned by the president himself, Museveni still went on to call homosexuals disgusting and has adopted the anti-homosexuality campaign as a hobbyhorse, galvanizing support for his nearly 40-year rule of the East African nation. “I was ready to ignore that if there was proof that that’s how he is born, abnormal. But now the proof is not there,” said Museveni, a claim refuted by Professor Paul Bangirana, a psychologist at Makere University who was also part of the commission. “Our report does not state anywhere that homosexuality is not genetic, and we did not say that it could be learned,” Bangirana clarified.  

Likewise, during a HARDtalk interview hosted by Stephen Sackur, Cardinal Peter Turkson, Ghana’s first cardinal appointed by Pope John Paul II attempted to correct the misguided notion that homosexuality was an import in Ghana, as he pointed out that even in the Akan language, there are linguistic delineations that accommodate gender nonconforming individuals, as is the case with many languages across Africa. Turkson pointed out that the concept of homosexuality “was known in the culture and the community… but nobody went on to make any policy out of it.”

Despite this, Ghana has also joined the campaign against homosexuality, with the Ghana Catholic Bishop’s Conference breaking with the mother church’s increasing tolerance for gender and sexual minorities. Still on matters Ghana, philosopher and associate professor Martin Odei Ajei has written eloquently not only about the place of homosexuality vis-à-vis the collective notion of sexuality in the larger “African” society but also how the limiting views held on the non-productive nature of gay sex could be reoriented to see the benefit brought to the society through “moderate communitarianism,” by also including homosexuals in the process of community building, which “gives equal value to what is good for individuals and what is good for community – as long as individuals and community serve and protect each other’s value and dignity.” 

The issue, however, has never been about the lack of well-supported defenses of homosexuality that also align with “African” values, or the lack of thorough research into the ancient and contemporary history of the same in the continent. Researcher and critical theorist Rahul Rao, for instance, points out the irony of Uganda simultaneously shunning homosexuality as a Western invention, while also creating a cult of Christian personality around the Ugandan Martyrs whose claim to fame is refusing the advances of a sexually lecherous and homosexual Kabaka. Many of our African leaders and legislators are highly educated individuals who one would expect to hold scholarly pursuits in high regard, even when they do not align with personal beliefs, otherwise, the notion of higher learning would collapse on itself. 

Far from an ignorance of facts, it is the semanticization of the issue, that allows for cultural aphasia and the association of decreed deplorables with unwitting and otherwise innocent culprits. It allows for the ordinary to be labeled as foreign, like the existence of indigenous queer bodies, and for the foreign to be transformed into something of the land, in the same way that African priests are more Christian than the Pope while gay Africans are anathema. It opens the door to a cultural shift with fear at its core – a fear of losing that which is now considered authentic (our Christian national identity, our neo-African identity), and a fear of destructive foreignness infiltrating and corrupting the sacred. 

Read More

• Hiding in Plain Sight: What We Have Missed About State-Sponsored Homophobia
• Justice Denied: Steven Kabuye Remains Committed to Human Rights Fight Months After Horrific Attack
• “Like You’re Praying”: The Art of Humiliation and History of Forced Anal Exams
• Femicide and Homophobia in Kenya: Women and Intersectional Struggles with galck+
• Entrapment: Middle East and North Africa No Safe Place for LGBT Online Dating

“The Princess and the Pea” 

The vilification of the “other” is nothing new and has happened throughout modern history. All the instances of creating enemies of the state mentioned in this article follow the same framework, and serve the same goal – the consolidation of power. Treating the current iteration of othering currently on display by African leaders as some sort of crusade of good against evil, in which relentless proselytizing must be applied is a grave error. It simultaneously absolves the actors as simpletons who know no better and can be reformed through reeducation and ignores the actual root cause of the problem which is power-hungry demagogues desperate to strengthen their spheres of influence and increase their staying power. 

Viewing current state-sponsored homophobic spikes across the continent as anything other than power grabs reifies the notion of the patronizing West looking to civilize the savage. These are not the actions of an ignorant bunch of rabble-rousers; the actors are calculated and meticulous, building upon tried and tested blueprints used over centuries to successfully deflect attention from failing governance and universally oppressive systems, a la Museveni, Mugabe, and Magufuli.  

Their actions win votes from believers in reform and change across the continent, who have not given up on the experiment of democracy, while their actions signify a tidal shift in people-oriented action. They spark hope that the bloated despotic regimes that connive their way to the top are actually starting the long-awaited process of safeguarding the African family, as Ghanaian legislators claim is the aim of the country’s anti-gay bill. 

It is a rallying cry that on this pile of scorched-earth ashes, we shall build nations worthy of the name, where children will be protected – from perverts and sexual deviants to start, but maybe also from hunger, disease, illiteracy, even perhaps war if done right. They are hoodwinked into squeezing out the last drops of hope from calcified memories of broken promises for one last leap of faith. It says loud and clear: “Trust us; we know what is best for you.” But this, too, is no more than an empty promise. In true African despot-chic fashion, however, empty promises are repackaged and placed back on populist politics shelves – a new brand for the here and now.  

African nations and their leaders are desperately trying to rebrand in the new age. They are trying to break free from their colonial past, and their third-world present, but not so far that their new identities do not contrast with their erstwhile iterations. Anti-homosexuality as the beginning of a brand shift is a perfect catalyst for more sinister an evolution – one that demands the mass dumping of anything and all things that might be considered Western forms of decadence. 

What defines these things and freedoms is on a need-to-know basis, and only becomes apparent once this neo-conservative Africa brand requires a refresh. Unfortunately, it is a brand that is predicated upon the cannibalization of identities, whatever they may be. And it is not that the identities themselves are objectively or even subjectively “un-African”, it is that they are available to be consumed by the machine, which is constantly demanding new sources of fuel to power its relentless trudge onward. 

Already the Gambia has proven instructive in this one aspect – a country that firmly identifies itself by the right to cannibalize female pleasure, and wears Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as an emblem of its “Brand Africa.” 

African leaders, one after the other, are painting themselves into an imaginary corner to justify their aggressive war against fictional enemies. In the past, the enemy has been feminism, globalization… Again, it is classic nation-state grandstanding with a cloak of deniability, perfected by countries like the US with its infamous wars on terror and drugs, and Europe with its battle against the invading hordes of illegal immigrants.  

There are also the inconvenient truths hidden beneath the uneasy surface of modern relations between African countries and the West. With reverence of the West comes self-effacement that is at times prescribed. Also, with a deep desire to be a part of the global movement, there is a killing of the authentically native. But also, of the collective unity, there are contentions about universal truths. It is not lost on African leaders throughout this rebranding campaign that what they are building upon is the scaffolding of the European empire and they are desperate, not to tear it down, but to conceal and claim as their own. 

What they are doing is far from revolutionary, and is mere reactionism; an inescapable reality by the mere fact that much of the continent’s political and modern social technology having been inherited from the very Brand Europe that Africa is seemingly trying to free itself. As it stands now, however, African democracies do not stand as outliers in governance, but as controls for the global experiment called democracy – dastardly doppelgangers of the West. 

“I Did It for You” 

More important is what this fear of “imported” ideas hides. African leaders by now understand that when the West sneezes, Africa catches a cold. The freedom movements in Africa happened in tandem with liberation movements in the old and the new worlds, where erstwhile marginalized groups were rising in opposition to hitherto unchallenged systems and status quos. It spoke to a greater liberation. You too can have freedom; it was screaming to the colonies! You too can stick it to the man!

It started in trickles but soon it was a gushing flood too great and violent to ignore, that colonial powers, one after the other, capitulated and relinquished control. This symbiotic relationship has never been severed, and even with the current neo-Afro-liberation movement taking root in Africa, Africans’ eyes still remain focused on happenings in the West, albeit less conspicuously. What this notion of borrowing ideas from the West speaks to is a larger liberation movement that African leaders are desperate to decapitate in its nascent stage. 

Excesses of capitalism mixed with the façade of populist politics across the continent have meant that African leaders and their cronies have opted for financial means to kneecap entire populations. Those who are lucky enough to receive paychecks are barely one away from absolute financial ruin, and busy themselves with the business of making ends meet. While those who have no ends to make meet busy themselves with the business of trying to find some. All of this makes for a population perpetually chasing, or being chased – a Maasai Mara-esque drama of survival of the fittest in which systems cannibalize those in them, and those who survive are too busy trying to survive to notice. 

African leaders are also acutely aware that nowhere do powder kegs of social change and revolution erupt with such furor as in Africa. This exuberant spirit for the struggle has been successfully employed for decades to keep wanton wars alive, and to maintain the rivers of bad blood between antagonistic forces flowing. Were that same fervor galvanized to show the common struggle, not of a tribe, or a region, or a city, but of a nation struggling under the metal-toed boot of an overly powerful political class, then calls for revolution would be immediate, as retribution for the ruling class would be swift and merciless. 

As bombastic as revolutions are in Africa, they are also near-impossible to ignite. Infused into the African political landscape, from country to country, are infrastructures of intolerance, from tribalism and sexism to classism and religious discrimination. Added to these is the ushering in of a MacGyver surveillance state, where governments call upon citizens to police one another for telltale signs of the new anti-social element promising to tear the country asunder. Who is to say whether or not in a society already riddled with pressure points, such a call to action will not be used as a tool against undesired tribes, or religions, or simply a neighbor one quarrels with? 

The ability to create fictions out of those around us is not the sole province of the ruling class but is a technology available to society at large. If merely denouncing suspected homosexuals in a system that requires little to no proof is enough to activate state-sponsored violence, then who is to say that disgruntled members of society will not weaponize it against one another? Forced to live within arbitrarily created borders, Africans exist in an uneasy truce easily disturbed by the slightest hint of encroachment or bad-faith action of one group against another. Civilian surveillance on the grounds of sexual incompliance harkening back to colonial-era denunciations pushes that truce further to the edge, making it near-impossible for collective action against a government.  

Pray Facing West 

It is important to alienate the struggles of the West from those happening in Africa. It allows for the fracturing of the collective human spirit by disassociating the fire ablaze in one’s neighbor’s house as just that, and not a flame lapping at one’s own exterior walls. Women in the US have been stripped of their right to abortion. This is happening as the Gambia contemplates decriminalizing Female Genital Mutilation. Countries across the world are pushing back against laws protecting gender and sexual minorities, just as African countries are instituting more draconian anti-gay laws. 

What African leaders are doing is hardly novel, nor is it unprecedented. Civilizations throughout history have legislated against newness and difference, from the Romans at the advent of Christianity to majority white countries legislating race relations between the 10th and 20th centuries. The UK, under successive monarchs, grappled with Catholic coexisting with Anglican, while France induced the birth of the New Republic by slaughtering its monarchy both figuratively and literally. A white minority-led South Africa grappled with the continued suppression of the black majority through systems of apartheid, while Mugabe, years later exposed the bogeyman lurking in plain sight – white farmers in Zimbabwe. 

Perceived newness, or even tacitly accepted elements of society, with the risk of large-scale societal uptake or undergoing a revolutionary renaissance, have always been controlled and curtailed if not entirely banned and outlawed. Framing African leaders as malevolent Machiavellian characters acting in a moral void inadvertently deifies them. And far from vilifying them in the eyes of the masses, they are transformed into mavericks, willing to make the hard choices despite unimaginable challenges. They are beatified in the eyes of the masses, like good cult leaders who promise eternal life at the bottom of a vile full of poison. 

The international community, so used to treating Africa and African leaders with kid gloves, doling out spankings when they veer from the pre-charted path, and dishing out trinkets when they stay in line, should find its way to treating both entities as global equals. Anti-LGBT movements are an exercise in sovereign agency, outside the purview of good or bad; modern or archaic; informed or ignorant. These binaries fail to capture actions taken purely for the sake of the nation-state, regardless of their outcome, in the same way, that erosions of rights are occurring in nanny-states for the sake of preserving an increasingly amorphous national identity.  

What should be – and I fear will be but too late – alarming to Africans as a whole, is that if such erosions of rights and legal protections are occurring in countries once considered the bastions of freedom and human rights protections, then what chance do African countries have? Long mired in corruption, many of our nations are young, and barely out of a half-century-long experimentation with democracy. More than half of our nations have experienced civil war, or been under the rule of dictators, or both. All this has happened in living memory. Who is to say that we will not all return to an age of absolute totalitarianism? 

And therein lies the catch. In making the issue of homosexuality an alien concept anathema to the rest of the population, in creating the in-between space of “I just don’t understand,” a foundation of alienation that leads with “should” and ends with the threat of “must” is laid. It leaves everyone in society, and not just marginalized groups, susceptible to legislative oppression under any guise conjured up by the ruling class purported to safeguard one facet or another of society. It creates precedence for such action, and in so doing, sets a rolling stone in motion that will surely gather no moss – gay or straight.  

_{Photos: Designed by Freepik, Unsplash}