The
demise of Robert Mugabe on 6 September 2019 was followed by heated debates
regarding his legacy. Spirited discussions oscillated from monikers of icon to iconoclast;
liberator to dictator. However, the former president’s infamous stance on
sexual orientation has not been as divisive. To the contrary, Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC) leader Nelson Chamisa lauded Mugabe’s
take on homosexuality as consistent with the Constitution and a positive
vestige of his legacy. This is echoes his predecessor,
the late Morgan Tsvangirayi’s own support for Mugabe’s
homophobia, ostensibly on constitutional grounds. This post analyses these constitutional claims by
linking homophobia in Zimbabwe to Afrophobia in South Africa as enduring African
phenomena of exclusion, dehumanization and degradation.
Robert
Mugabe’s views on sexuality were as unlettered as they were
unsophisticated. He called members of the LGBTI community worse than dogs and
pigs and crudely referenced the human anatomy as a basis for criminalizing sexual non-conformity. This resulted in countless raids on
and incarceration of persons in, or linked with, the LGBTI community. To be
clear, Robert Mugabe was not a crusader against same sex marriages but non-conforming sexualities in general and same-sex sexuality in particular. He was more intent on keeping
them in detention rather than out of wedlock. Non-conforming sexuality
was itself, per Mugabe, sufficient basis to suspend the individual’s right to
liberty and human dignity.
There
is nothing in the Constitution which supports Mugabe’s odious rhetoric. The
Constitution contains an injunction against same sex marriage and not same sex sexuality.
Conflating the two is meant to create constitutional justification for
homophobic bigotry. The prohibition against
marriage does not provide legal impetus for criminalization of sexuality. Neither does it make any human being worse than dogs and pigs. Human dignity is inviolable
under the Constitution, that is, it cannot be limited under any circumstances. It is not subject to the ideals of heteronormativity. Labelling a
class of human beings as worse than animals is itself unconstitutional. It amounts to hate speech and is prohibited under section 61(5)(b) of the Constitution. In a nutshell, Mugabe's verbiage was at odds with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Nonetheless, it must be noted that constitutions, like religious texts, can contain bad provisions. They are not infallible. It
is insufficient to point to the Constitution or the Bible as the final word in
a moral debate. Colonialism was constitutional, as was slavery, the oppression
of women and racialism. The prohibition of same-sex marriage in the Zimbabwean
Constitution is wrong. It is discriminatory and is no different from the racist
three-fifths compromise in the American Constitution. Morally repugnant views are not made acceptable by constitutional codification. Section 78 (3) of the Constitution is morally reprehensible, yet it still does not provide constitutional
justification for Mugabe’s rabid homophobic bigotry.
The
resurgence of Afrophobic attacks in South Africa has brought African identity
and the limitations of regional camaraderie into sharp focus. Nationality is
emerging as the central basis for exclusion in South Africa, whilst sexuality is
the bane bequeathed by the Mugabe legacy in Zimbabwe. It is paradoxical that
most Zimbabweans castigate attacks on ethnic minorities abroad whilst fomenting
hostility against sexual minorities at home. Whilst rejecting Mugabe’s
arguments of western responsibility for the moribund Zimbabwean economy, they gladly embrace his claims of western origins for sexual
diversity.
This is the ghost of Mugabe that most are not willing to renounce.
It evinces an often unspoken yet rigidly unshakable admiration for the
uncompromising African big man, making a stand against neoliberal sexual
subjectivity. To this extent, Robert Mugabe’s leadership style was simply
a reflection of widespread aversion to the neo-liberal human rights framework
which foregrounds the individual as a sovereign social agent. For this reason, Mugabe's arguments for proper African social embeddedness found resonance with a majority of
Zimbabweans. Ironically, it is the crime of sodomy, rather
than the practice of homosexuality, which was imported from Britain. The
vaunted rejection of western ideals plays out as an acceptance of Victorian sensibilities; just as Mugabe vehemently opposed the West whilst embracing their culture, manners and mannerisms.
The
issue of sexual rights, like that of Afrophobic attacks, cannot be subject to a
popularity contest. It makes no difference if all Zimbabweans are against sexual
diversity, just as it hardly matters if every South African were Afrophobic. Constitutionalism requires protection of vulnerable groups, including ethnic and sexual
minorities. The needless suffering of African brethren in South Africa heightens the urgency for recognition of inherent dignity rather than ethnic or sexual difference. Following Mugabe's lead on heteronormativity may resonate
with the Christian right and many other social conservatives, but it will also entrench homophobic bigotry and must be addressed before we make the tragic leap from hate speech to hate crimes.
