“Is homosexuality an African or un-African human rights issue?” This question is not only central to the examination of Christian-informed homophobia but also the lens through which this study explores African disputes on homosexuality. In both religious and political circles, the argument that homosexuality is un-African and thus not a human rights issue is now an established mantra. Sexual minorities and human rights advocates, however, contest such claims—leading to what this study terms the contestation and externalization of sexuality . By “contestation,” I refer to the competing socio-political claims—homosexuality is un-African and un-Christian vis-à-vis a human rights issue. Externalization, however, refers to attempts to present homosexuality as a foreign vice imported into Africa. The study understands homophobia as the stigmatization and discrimination directed at people who demonstrate sexual diversity (West et al. 2016: 1).
Although the study acknowledges the life-threatening effects of homophobia on sexual minorities , it nonetheless contends that the desire to protect an “African identity ,” culture, religion , and the youth from an assumed Western “assault” of the “homosexual movement” drives African religious and political opposition to same-sex intimate relations. This attitude or stance may be considered protective homophobia— that is politically and religiously organized opposition to homosexuality as an attempt to protect Africa’s traditional heritage, Christianity/Islam , and children from the “global homosexual agenda ” (Broqua 2016; Ndzovu 2016). The result is restrictive national legislations enacted under the banner of protecting African culture, religions , and children. On the political front, however, protective homophobia is driven by the growing influence of Christianity and democratic human rights cultures in sub-Saharan African politics (Kaoma 2015; Katongole 2011; Sanneh 2003).
During my 2009 visit to Abuja, for example, I interviewed Canon Joshua Taiwo, a Nigerian Anglican priest, about same-sex intimate relationships. “If they are doing it, they are doing it privately. They dare not come to the open. They will be shot. I can assure you that they will be stoned to death. We don’t do it in Africa. It is only in the West that they are doing rubbish,” the visibly angry reverend told me on camera. Addressing his supporters in 2013, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe also warned, “Let Europe keep their homosexual nonsense there and live with it. We will never have it here. The act … is not humane” (Newsweek 2015). In these words, Canon Taiwo and Mugabe are simultaneously contesting and externalizing homosexuality.
The visit to Abuja was part of a study which sought to under-stand African --> sexual politics as it relates to American mainline Protestant churches —Episcopalian/Anglican, United Methodist, and Presbyterian. In addition to Nigeria , the study took me to Malawi , Kenya , Uganda , Zambia , and Zimbabwe . During my research, I realized that the topic was beyond inter-continental church affairs—it included both domestic and interstate politics. Some of the findings were published in Globalizing the Culture Wars (2009), Colonizing African Values (2012), and American Culture Warriors in Africa (2014).
The scapegoating of sexual minorities and the number of African nations adopting or expanding anti-gay laws, as well as international responses to the same, invite scholarly analysis—something this study undertakes. It locates sexual politics within the broader historical, socio-economic, and the political context of postcolonial Africa. The study further explores the implications of sexual politics on Africa’s self-understanding.
To some extent, the US Christian conservatives ’ involvement in Uganda ’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 increased global academic interest in Africa’s sexual politics (van Klinken and Chitando 2016; Bosia and Weiss 2013; Bob 2012; Kaoma 2009). The publicization of the plight of sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex [LGBTI] persons) in Africa attracted international involvement in African sexual politics. The US government, Canada, the United Nations , the European Union , human rights organizations, and some churches did not just condemn the persecution of sexual minorities but also sided with, and funded, sexual rights advocacy in Africa. This response, however, provoked militant homophobia in sub-Saharan Africa.
The opposition to sexual diversity , the study contends, benefits from the free democratic space brought about by the post-one-party state civil society organizations dedicated to human rights (Mutua 2000; Schwab 2002). In other words, the democratization of Africa increased the church’s involvement in governance. But this involvement has a post-independence history. At the time when the press and political opposition were suppressed by nationalist leaders, the church became the most important institution to challenge African dictators. In this regard, the 1990s’ democratization of Africa institutionalized the church’s socio-political role in domestic affairs, specifically, human sexuality.
The church’s initial involvement in sexuality politics became critical in the fight against HIV/AIDS . As Africa negotiated the HIV/AIDS crisis, the church emerged as the major partner in government efforts to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Aside from providing home-based care to AIDS patients, the church intensified its HIV/AIDS awareness programs for both the infected and affected while promoting “abstinence”-only programs. Since sexual promiscuity is linked to HIV/AIDS , the church insists on changing heterosexual attitudes as key to arresting this epidemic.
African Christian contestation of homosexuality benefits from this established social history. Indeed, the advent of HIV/AIDS forced the issue of sexuality into African political and social discourses. However, the subject was/is deeply entrenched in, and limited to, heterosexual relationships—sex between males and females. In this context, sexuality is defined in heteronormative terms—leaving out non-heterosexuals.
The identification or “medicalization” of men who have sex with men (MSM) as among the key risk populations in contracting and transmitting HIV expanded the definition of sexuality (UNAIDS 2006; Bosia 2014; Roehr 2010; Beyrer et al. 2012). In Africa, however, it unwittingly increased the stigmatization of sexual minorities . As Bosia (2014: 258) observes, the medicalization of same-sex intimate relations is “a frequent trope for political action and political contestation.” In Africa, for example, it aids protective homophobia —by opposing homosexuality, we are protecting Africa from AIDS.
The aforementioned context informs how sexual rights are perceived in Africa and across the globe. How international and local groups negotiate this landscape is critical to overcoming the global divide on homosexuality (Pew Research Center 2013). It is tempting, however, to conclude that this divide will not change—cultural change is slow and fragile. Moreover, the West has wrestled with se...