The president’s decision surprised many who wanted it kicked into the long grass. He had previously given the impression he would instead “fight” parliament, which he initially accused of passing the law in disregard of his advice not to do so until the government had studied it thoroughly.
However, those who were surprised by what looked like a sudden change in his opinion ignored something: Local scientists had convinced him that there is “no scientific proof yet that people are homosexuals by genetics.”
The expert “advice” freed his hands, which had previously been tied by reports that people are born homosexual. In a statement that smacks of relief, he said he would tell the “outside groups what our scientists have to say.” And so now he can tell whoever harasses him about it, “It’s not me, mate; it’s the scientists.”
However, if Museveni expected opposition to come only from foreign groups, he couldn’t have been more mistaken.
Inside Uganda itself and in chat rooms bringing together diaspora Ugandans and those inside the country, battles are raging between “liberals” criticising what they see as “growing intolerance”, and defenders of “African values,” which, they argue, do not allow for discussion of matters to do with sex in public, let alone public displays of sexually suggestive behaviour. And if the kind of sex involved is gay sex, they insist, that is even more un-African.
Of course, whether homosexuality is African or not African is a redundant question. There are indications that it predates the arrival of Europeans who today are accused of spreading it.
Even President Museveni himself has alluded to hearing about homosexuals in his community when he was a child. He has never said that they were Europeans, which must mean they were as African as everyone else.
But Museveni has mentioned something else that is important and worthy of consideration in this debate.
He has said that, like everyone else in the community of his childhood, the local homosexuals treated their sexuality as a private matter and never sought to advertise or “promote” it. This is where he seems to strike a chord with large numbers of would-be protectors of “African values” in and outside parliament.
To understand where many are coming from, one has to start with the origins of what seems like mass hysteria about homosexuality. According to a reliable source inside the Uganda parliament, MPs started getting preoccupied with homosexuality after reports, accurate or not, started circulating about its active promotion, including in schools.
According to the source, there are even videos to prove it. Whether these reports are accurate or authentic is beside the point.
What is important is that the “news” has spread far and wide. In many circles where the anti-gay law is being applauded, this is what underlies the belligerent attitude towards would-be homosexuals and anyone who appears to defend homosexuality.
In this, the donor community, other “foreign groups” and even US President Barack Obama, who have not been shy about expressing their indignation, are seen as agents of moral corruption. There is, clearly, right and wrong on both sides. Quiet discussion in search of common ground, it seems to me, would be more productive than the current hectoring and heckling.
There is also a political edge to the views of the Bill’s supporters, many without knowing the details of its provisions, many of which they probably wouldn’t support if they were not about gay sex.
Consider this. Some vocal proponents of the law argue that, beyond gay sex, it is also about democracy, one of the “fundamental values” international actors now expressing indignation have always sought to promote.
They argue that the thinking behind the MPs’ passing of the Bill reflects general thinking within Ugandan society, because ordinary Ugandans are supportive of the idea of outlawing homosexuality, as are religious groups and even cultural ones. This, they say, is what democracy is about: Between outsiders championing homosexuality and Ugandans opposing it, Museveni must make a choice, and that he has done well to choose those who elected him.
The debate does not stop there. There is the “little issue” of aid. Some ask whether Ugandans should expect benefactors offended by Museveni’s decision to continue giving money to a government intent on institutionalising human-rights abuse. For those opposing the law, this is where its supporters should really pause and reflect on its implications for Uganda’s future should donors decide to cut aid.
For supporters of the law, it is more important to ask whether Uganda as an independent country should have the right to make decisions in line with the popular wishes of its citizens. They insist it should, money or no money.
Well, what many believed was a debate about sex and between outsiders and insiders is clearly not that simple.
*Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala- and Kigali-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment