THE heat under the debate of homosexual rights in the United States grows warmer from one election to the next. California sat in the hot seat in May of 2008 when its Supreme Court upheld gay marriage; however, the measure was overturned by an affirmative vote of Proposition 8 during the November elections. While gay marriage is legal in only five states and the District of Columbia, progress is marked by acceptance. Observation shows that homosexuals in the U.S. face fewer cases of violence (violence being distinctive from hate speech) and atrocities compared to those in most of Africa.
The contempt for homosexuals in Uganda is emboldened by extreme measures of anti-gay legislation and violence. Yet, the country of South Africa contrasts much differently in most respects to homosexuals. Certainly, South Africa nor Uganda compare to the more advanced governmental and social context of the U.S., but South Africa’s treatment of homosexuals separates itself from Uganda’s by a wide margin. As a result of more secure legal protections and quality of life for homosexuals, South Africa, despite being an African nation, is more conducive to supporting homosexuals than Uganda.
In 37 of 54 African countries, laws exist that permit criminalizing and making illegal homosexuality; most of these laws date back to British colonial rule (Ray 75). Uganda serves as a prime example of an African country that upholds discriminatory laws; the country still imposes charges against sodomy. In addition, several countries without written laws have governances that simply deny the existence of homosexuality altogether. As South Africa’s legislator supports marriages for homosexuals courtesy of a 230-41 vote, more than 37 African countries continue defaming, jailing, and murdering gays and activists. However, there is no concrete foundation for glorifying South Africa by any means; the country still faces degrees of homosexual oppression. The directive of this comparative analysis resides in a twofold premise: Uganda headlines a hate movement, while South Africa takes the stage of progress.
However, questions remain as to how and why South Africa has managed to mostly overcome a stigma of violence and prejudice seen throughout the continent of Africa. Moreover, why is Uganda, a democracy with legislative elections, promulgating the most notorious cases of violence and legislation against homosexuals? The answers to such questions rest in a side by side analysis of Uganda and South Africa in the context of government and conflict.
The population in Uganda fits several standards for a dangerous democracy set forth by Oxford University professor Paul Collier in his book “Wars, Guns, and Votes.” First, Collier notes that violence is more likely to occur when the population is predominantly made up of unemployed educated young men (Collier 130). According to the Central Intelligence Agency, 49.9% of Uganda’s population consists of persons between 0-14 year of age with 8,692,239 being male and 8,564,571 being female. 48.1% of the population is between the ages of 15-64 with a near 50-50 split of males to females. This leaves a median age among the Ugandan population at 15.1 years (The World Factbook). With the third largest growth rate in the world, 35% of the population is below the poverty line (The World Factbook).
Such youthful origins of violence is communicated in journalist Elizabeth Day’s article “Why was I born gay in Africa?” Day reports the struggles of homosexuals by featuring Florence Kizza, a Ugandan lesbian. As Kizza approached a “marriageable age,” she says those in her Ugandan community began questioning her sexuality (Day 1). Day writes that in “December 2000, neighbors broke into [Kizza’s] house and found her in bed with [her partner]. The villagers stripped the two women naked, paraded them through the streets and then beat them in front of a baying crowd” (Day 1). A year later, Kizza was arrested by police officers who over a three day period beat and raped her (1). Fortunately, Kizza fled to the United Kingdom where she now enjoys refugee status. According to Day, her partner’s whereabouts remain uncertain. This is one example among many in Uganda where a young community sparks vicious acts of violence.
On the other hand, the population statistics in South Africa appropriately fail to align with those in Uganda. The CIA reports that only 28.5% of South Africa’s population is between the ages of 0-14, and 65.8% are between 15-64 years of age (The World Factbook). While 50% of the country falls beneath the poverty line, South Africa ranks 220th in the world for population growth (The World Factbook). The fact that South Africa reports a higher population below the poverty line than Uganda, but fails to host similar violence is qualified by Collier’s description of “causality” (Collier 124). He explains that low-income is not necessarily the definite link of violence, because of the many other causal links to low-income, for example economic growth rates (Collier 125). Therefore, in South Africa, the high level of poverty does not necessarily cause violence. Rather, it is more likely that the smaller population of youth causes the modest level of violence in South Africa.
Furthermore, University of the Western Cape professor Kelvin Mwaba’s report “Attitudes and Beliefs About Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage Among a Sample of South African Students” indicates another distinction that can be made from Uganda. The report Mwaba compiled finds that of 150 undergraduate students polled, 71% “viewed same- sex marriages as strange and supported religious groups opposed to such marriages” (Mwaba 801). However, 83% of those polled were women (Mwaba 802). The potential indicator of violence that Collier mentions says young men tend to be the perpetrators not women. In addition, the report shows a drop to 37% of the polled supporting outright discrimination against homosexuals (803). While attitudes towards gays in South Africa face obstacles, the construct for violence presented by Collier seems less likely in South Africa than that of Uganda.
A second aspect that Collier points to for a country’s risk of falling into civil war or being more apt for violence is a past history of such things. Collier says that there is “a risk of violence caused by the gradually decaying effects of previous violence than by something underlying and constant” (Collier 129). Like most African countries, Uganda and South Africa have histories of violence. However, the conditions of such violence are drastically different between the two countries. In Uganda, there is “a wide range of ethnic groups with different political systems and cultures” (The World Factbook). Collier mentions how vast diversity can cripple a country, and for Uganda it did. In the 1970s, the “dictatorial regime of Idi Amin was responsible for the deaths of some 300,000 opponents...” Then from 1980-85, “guerilla war and human rights abuses under Milton Obote claimed at least another 100,000 lives” (The World Factbook). Collier says that “Amin had not only wrecked the Ugandan economy, he had suffered the ignominy of being deposed through an invasion by Tanzania...” (Collier 183).
While Uganda faces a past stained by violence, Collier touts current President Yoweri Museveni, the successor of President Amin. Since taking power in 1986, Collier says that “President Museveni has achieved a remarkable transformation. Despite being landlocked and resource-scarce, Uganda has been one of the fastest-growing of Africa’s economies” (Collier 182). Yet, the oppression pressed upon homosexuals in Uganda is not one reveled by President Museveni. This makes sense, because Museveni is not in a position where he must scapegoat a minority to compensate for a poor economy. For example, in Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe said homosexuality “‘degrades human dignity. It’s unnatural, and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs’” (Ray 75). Whether Mugabe believes in this homophobic sentiment is irrelevant, he masks his country’s economic woes with social conflict. Even though Uganda lacks such a homophobic figure head, the country’s majority party (which Museveni belongs to) picks up the slack.
Ben Anderson writes in his article “The Politics of Homosexuality in Africa” that “no other comparative geo-political region, such as Asia or the America’s, has such a high rate of anti-gay legislation” (Anderson 126). Uganda’s parliament is steadfast on approving the most notorious of the anti-gay legislation from Africa. David Bahati has proposed a bill that exclaims the death penalty be used on those who commit ‘homosexual acts.’ The legislation states that it “‘further recognizes the fact that same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic.’ But only if sexual orientation is voluntary can a person be held accountable for his or her choice” (Rausing 22).
Sigrid Rausing asserts in his article “Uganda is sanctioning gay genocide” that “[persons] no more choose to be gay or bisexual than you choose to be left-handed or ambidextrous; it’s a morally neutral position” (Rausing 22). Furthermore, the anti-gay legislation, according to Rausing, “addresses only the ‘offender’, as though in gay relationships there is only ever a perpetrator” (22). This first time offender would be subject to imprisonment for life according to the bill. Which then leads to the offense of “aggravated homosexuality,” these persons are considered “serial offenders” (22). In essence, the anti-gay legislation subjects those who are homosexual prior to the bill’s existence will face the the death penalty. Rausing explains that “anyone who is a confirmed gay man or lesbian and already has a sexual history faces the death penalty, alongside homosexual rapists and child abusers” (22). Also, if a Ugandan knows of a homosexual, he or she must inform authorities 24 hours after inception of the knowledge, or otherwise also face a prison sentence (22). As a result of the offender-victim scenario in the bill, partners will be forced to choose “between ‘victim’ or ‘offender’; the former protected [by the government and paid [by the offender], the latter imprisoned or killed” (22).
The distasteful and heinous anti-gay legislation promotes practices similar to Nazi law. In addition, journalist Carina Ray writes in her article “Confronting Homophobia” that “at a time when the fallout from the decade-long civil war... has not been... dealt with, it seems almost criminal that Uganda is trying to pass draconian anti-gay legislation” rather than focus on reconstruction (Ray 75). Following international pressure, the BBC reports that President Museveni “said the bill was now a ‘foreign policy issue’ and would be discussed by the cabinet” (Uganda 1). The same article says that Sweden and other countries threatened to cut aid to the country (Uganda 1). In a meeting with ruling party members, Museveni exclaimed that country leader after country leader had contacted him about the legislation. He said, ‘“Mrs. Clinton [the US secretary of state] rang me. What was she talking about? Gays’” (Uganda 1). In a country where homosexuality is already punishable by 14 years in prison, the legal protections for homosexuals would be grossly dehumanized under this legislation.
In contrast, the legal protections for homosexuals in South Africa are awesomely stronger. Mark Massoud highlights in his article “The Evolution of Gay Rights in South Africa” that “in 1996, the South African government approved a new constitution. In addition to ending de jure apartheid [the segregation of blacks], it was the first in the world to protect the rights of homosexuals” (Massoud 301). This implementation of a homosexual legal protection in the law of the land in itself transcends any of the attitudes of the population. Furthermore, South Africa worked to sew the division of legality versus social attitudes; therefore, rising an additional success for homosexuals. Massoud writes that “the space between a progressive legal code and a conservative society became the arena for action by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) between 1994 and 1998” (Massoud 301). The “Gay and Lesbian Equality Project” (or the ‘Coalition’) found gains in lobbying for the removal of sodomy laws (301). Campbell Lyons, executive director of Khululekani Institute for Democracy, explains that the National Party (former apartheid supporters), the African National Congress (ANC), and others negotiated a “constitution, and the democratic government... [that] attempted to remedy past injustices by guaranteeing equal rights for all” (302). In large part, South Africa noted its past and acted in a manner to assure that all persons, no matter how diverse, would not be discarded from legal protections.
The empathy effect in the South African governmental renewal continues to set the country from the rest of the continent. South African Justice Edwin Cameron wrote an article in 1993 that demonstrated this very concept of empathy. The article entitled “Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Test Case for Human Rights” made equal “sexual discrimination with the racial injustice that existed under the apartheid regime. [Justice Cameron] suggested that racism, sexism, and homophobia fostered similar negative consequences: a breakdown of rights and equality” (303). The Coalition claims that Cameron’s remarks motivated top political players to liberalize their views (303). However, they still had to overcome the social attitudes in order to solidify their momentum of removing sodomy laws. Massoud says that “by 1998 the Coalition was at the forefront of the growing group of NGOs dedicated to empowering South Africans to recognize, understand, and demand their new rights in court” (305). The education campaign led by the NGOs eventually harnessed victory in the Constitutional Court case National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice of 1998 (305).
Further, homosexuals in South Africa found another legal victory in 2006. Joining only Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden, South Africa’s parliament per the direction of the Constitutional Court approved gay marriage for the entire country by an overwhelming majority (Fastenberg 1). In a continent that is haunted by anti-gay laws, prosecutions, violence, and injustice, South Africa further extends opportunity, legal protection, and quality of life for homosexuals. Hence, emphasizing its polar opposition to the homophobic Uganda.
Even with the record of NGO success and critical historical attitude in South Africa, the question of what forces and influences have prompted the proposals and violence in Uganda remain. Thus far, sodomy laws and homophobic notions have been linked to British colonization; however, Collier dismisses this as a qualifier for violence and social stigmas. He says, “...there is a ready demand for evidence that colonialism is responsible for the subsequent violence. Unfortunately, Anke and I cannot find evidence that supports this contention” (Collier 128). Instead, a combination of components influence the decisions and violence in Uganda.
First, weakness in Uganda’s constitution have been exposed by actions taken by President Museveni. Whereas South Africa undoubtedly associates with a strong constitution, Uganda lacks the necessary fortitude. Collier notes that the ease by which a president abolishes term limits serves as a “good measure of how vigorously the society had built constitutional defense” (Collier 150). Unfortunately for Uganda, President Museveni “succeeded in abolishing them...” (150). Secondly, Western religious influences factor into enraging homophobia in Uganda. Western evangelicals’ presence have increased tensions in many African countries, while for the most part not influencing South Africa. According to Anglican priest Rev. Kapya Kaoma from Zambia, “renewal church movements [from the United States] are exporting their homophobic doctrine to churches in Uganda, Kenya, and Nigeria” (Ray 75). For example, Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, three American evangelicals, met with Uganda’s ruling party to’ indirectly’ encourage the passing of the anti-gay legislation (Johnson 1). The three have described homosexuality “as a disease that could be healed, although they have subsequently disclaimed any responsibility for the bill” (Johnson 1). Lively, Brundidge and Schmierer also authored propaganda communicated through different international organizations. Lively serves as the President of Defend the Family International; he declared that “legalising homosexuality would mean legalising ‘the molestation of children and having sex with animals’” (1). Additionally, Brundidge works with the International Healing Foundation as a “sexual reorientation coach”; he “claims once to have been gay himself” (1).
Most importantly, the Western evangelical message is resonating within a culture that stands closely to religion. RW Johnson indicates in his article “West turns Africa into gay battlefield” that Museveni’s minister for ethics “says homosexuality is a ‘moral perversion that must not be allowed to spread’” (1). Ugandan churches echo these sentiments; “Archbishop Henry Orombi and Pastor Martin Sempe have been leading a campaign in support of the bill” (1). Retired bishop Christopher Senyonjo who preached acceptance experienced the intolerance of the Church of Uganda when it “stripped him of his pension” (1). Between a preexisting homophobia and many financial incentives for African clergy “who pump up the volume of their anti-gay rhetoric”, Western evangelicals are amplifying their message in Uganda (Ray 75). Lively told a Ugandan audience that he “‘knows more than almost anyone in the world’ about homosexuality. He says that the genocide in Rwanda was carried out by gays, [and] that AIDS is a just punishment for homosexuality...” (Johnson 1). With such extreme legislation being considered in Ugandan parliament, Lively’s message has reached his target audience.
In South Africa, archbishop emeritus of Cape Town and 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu aligned himself as a religious voice for homosexuals. Even in 1996, Tutu sounded his support for the homosexual equalities in the South African constitution. He said, “it would be a sad day... if... the Final Constitution did not guarantee their fundamental human right to a sexual life, whether heterosexual or homosexual” (Massoud 303). Recently, Tutu offered his resentment of Uganda’s treatment of homosexuals and proposed anti-gay legislation. He says, “the wave of hate must stop. Politicians who profit from exploiting this hate... must not be tempted by this easy way to profit from fear and misunderstanding. And my fellow clerics, of all faiths, must stand up for principles of universal dignity and fellowship. Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice” (Tutu 1). Tutu also mentions the impacts homophobia has on treatment for those with HIV/AIDS; driving persons into hiding rather than medical facilities (Tutu 1). Finally, he asserts an impacting word to the religious community; “I would never worship a homophobic God” (1).
One final medium for Uganda’s hatred and intolerance is born in the media. CNN’s Tom Walsh writes that a Ugandan tabloid Rolling Stone (not to be mistaken with the US magazine)released a list of ‘top 100 homosexuals’ in the country (Walsh 1). With photos and addresses published, an accompanying banner read “Hang Them”; the tabloid later stated it meant for hangings to follow legal procedures (Walsh 1-2). One of Uganda’s leading gay rights activist was included on this list. A year later, David Kato was found “bludgeoned to death in his home near the capital” (1). In an interview with CNN following the release of the list and prior to his death, Kato shared a fear for his life. He said, “The villagers want to set my house ablaze. They want to burn my house” (1).
Conclusively, these ruthless conditions for homosexuals in Uganda have detailed the deep contrast with South Africa’s continuing progress for homosexual equality. While Uganda slips away into Western evangelical influence, anti-gay legislation, and media led ‘outing campaigns,’ South Africa moves forward with a constitution that guarantees legal protection, the passage of gay marriage, and NGOs that drew off of the aspects of global tolerance for homosexuals. Between the ongoing violence and distasteful opinions in Uganda and its neighbors, progress is far away from being realized. A staunch ignorance stifles any alleviation to the dehumanization of homosexuals. South Africa must stand as an example of triumph and progress for gays. Uganda and others need note that homosexuals deserve a voice. They deserve acceptance. They deserve legal protections. And most of all, they deserve their humanity.
Works Cited
Anderson, Ben. “The Politics of Homosexuality in Africa.” Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Web.
Collier, Paul. Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places. New York: Harper Perennial, 2010. Print.
Day, Elizabeth. "'Why Was I Born Gay in Africa?'" Guardian. 27 Mar. 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/27/uganda-gay-lesbian-
Fastenberg, Dan. "A Brief History of International Gay Marriage - TIME." International Gay Marriage. TIMEs Newspapers Ltd 2010, 22 July 2010. Web. 04 May 2011.<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2005678,00.html>.
Johnson, RW. "West Turns Africa into Gay Battlefield." The Times. Times Newspapers Ltd 2010, 17 Jan. 2010. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
Mwaba, Kelvin. "Attitudes and Beliefs About Homosexuality and Same-Sex MarriageAmong a Sample Of South African Students." Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 37.6 (2009): 801-804. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Rausing, Sigrid. "Uganda is sanctioning gay genocide." New Statesman 138.4976 (2009): 22. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Ray, Carina. "Confronting homophobia." New African 492 (2010): 74-75. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
The World Factbook 2009. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009.
Tutu, Desmond. "In Africa, a Step Backward on Human Rights." The Washington Post. 12 Mar. 2010. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
“Uganda President Museveni wary of anti-gay bill.” BBC News. 13 Jan. 2010. Web. 04 May 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8456624.stm>.
Walsh, Tom. "Ugandan Gay Rights Activist Bludgeoned to Death." CNN. 27 Jan. 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-27/world/
