Can gay rights activists trust Museveni to “Handle It?”Posted: September 12, 2011
For the last two years since the introduction of the anti-homosexuality bill, I have argued that the anti-gay movement in Uganda is bigger than the individuals gay activists have singled out as the crusaders of the anti-gay agenda in Uganda. By fighting frivolous figures such as David Bahati, gay activists have gone out of sight of the underlying motives behind the bill and the intentions it seeks to satisfy. One such intention is Christian fundamentalism which is unmistakeably at the heart of the anti-gay agenda.
Following leaked diplomatic cables citing the role of Uganda First Lady Janet Museveni in sustaining the anti-homosexuality bill, it is worthwhile paying attention to the breadth of what drives this bill.
The Sunday Monitor reports that a leaked cable between Senior Presidential Adviser John Nagenda and a US embassy political officer mentions Mrs. Museveni having special interest in the Kill the Gays bill. Nagenda is quoted to have described Mrs. Museveni as ‘a very extreme woman.” Not surprising. Mrs. Museveni is known to have strong ties to US evangelicals and the Pentecostal movement in Uganda. She is also known for moral-lecturing at national youth conferences where she speaks of the dangers of the secular world and urges the youth to embrace “spiritual growth.” Her legacy of making a difference in the lives of Ugandan children is a virtue of her well-meaning intentions to give them a worthwhile future. She has also supported national campaigns to encourage abstinence among the youth. All her good intentions observed, it is important to put the legacy of the First Lady into perspective if tracing the long trajectory of the Christian Right will make sense of the the motives that drive anti-gay campaigners to frenzy over a bill that is out-rightly unconstitutional, descriptively redundant, and regrettably diversionary.
The globalization of the Christian Right is emerging at a time when most Ugandans, including highly placed politicians, are looking to religious leaders for answers to problems facing the country. The objective of protecting the African traditional family as mentioned in the preamble of the bill digs deep into the conservative agenda that the legislation seeks to promote.
The growing movement of evangelicals in Africa has ushered in a new era of Eurocentric thoughts and beliefs on family, sex, and marriage. Same-sex relationships are condemned because “they are not in line with God’s purpose for procreation,” an idea that the evangelical tradition shares with traditional African culture except for different reasons. While African culture espouses sex for procreation as a way of continuing family lineage, the evangelical tradition espouses procreation on the basis that non-child bearing sexual relationships are against God’s intention for marriage.
As American evangelicals bring their theology of “sexual uprightness” to Africa they meet a people who are not only threatened by the promotion of human rights (which in Africa could pass as the “return” of colonialism) but are strongly attached to continuation of family lineage through child bearing. On a continent where people are still threatened by human rights, adverse anti-gay sentiments are becoming more visible and it is almost difficult to eliminate them because of the theology through which they are propagated.
The arguments against separation of church and state have birthed a sexual revolution that has led to the rise of anti-gay movements in Africa. It is a major cultural shift between African tradition and its “live and let live” stance on non-heterosexual relationships and western-bred evangelical theology which places procreation at the center of human sexual relationships.
Most Christian fundamentalists believe that states would not function well unless they sought guidance from a higher power. From Francis Schaeffer to Janet Museveni, the long trajectory of the Christian Right is proof that the “gays are a threat to state power” mindset has always informed their politics and theology.
President Museveni has assured donors that he has the anti-homosexuality bill under control. His adviser Nagenda even urged diplomats to not to publicize the bill as this would spark off more anti-gay sentiments in the country. However, based on the weight of advocacy that has been done by human rights activists to ensure that a bill which could have become law two years ago is still lurking in parliament and has been opposed by cabinet, we cannot keep silent and put our trust in the words of a leader of state who appears as an ally at donor tables but speaks so violently of LGBT rights whenever he wants to use it as a strategy to remain popular especially among religious groups.
Hopefully, President Museveni will step up his promise to “handle” the bill. We will not allow the future of LGBT rights and human rights in general to be determined by the First Lady and her evangelical cohorts.