Is South Africa’s Commitment to LGBT Rights Only for Domestic Consumption?

With the majority of sub-Saharan Africa being openly homophobic, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights are found to be far more limited in the region than in anywhere else in the world. In the recent past, African countries have proposed and passed legislations condemning gay marriage and gay sexual activity, with 38 out of the 55 African states criminalising homosexuality. Meanwhile, South Africa stands out from its neighbours as a paradox of the tremendous homophobia, placing itself as not only a continental, but as a world leader in protecting gay rights.

Despite the overwhelming restriction of LGBT rights supported by the majority of governments in the region, one country has shown signs of progress; South Africa. Following a very diverse and complicated history regarding gay rights, we question how serious the South African government is about defending the rights of LGBT individuals? South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution, famously signed by Nelson Mandela in December 1996, provides the most comprehensive protection of individual rights in the world, being the first ever constitution to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. It’s most significant progress to date was the legalisation of same-sex civil marriage, with Parliament voting 230:41 in November 2006, showing exemplary changes. Further progress in the country will see a new gay rights political party (Equal Rights party) to stand in this year’s South African elections against the discrimination and persecution of gay and lesbian people in the country, defending their rights against violent incidents such corrective rape and torture.

Despite the inspiring progress when comparing with other nations in the region, South African victims say that the country offers little protection unless the authorities enforce its provisions. Pretoria has had difficulty translating its historical records into foreign policy. At the start of the year, campaigners warned that corrective rape attacks against men had increased. Furthermore, under the Mbeki administration, in 2008, South Africa’s ambassador to the United Nations (UN), Jerry Matjila, failed to support a resolution sponsored by France in the Security Council in New York, calling for the protection of gay people against violence, because the country didn’t want to offend the governments of its African neighbours. Additionally, in 2010, President Zuma appointed famously homophobic Jon Qwelane, who compares same-sex relationships to bestiality, calling for the removal of gays’ constitutional rights, as Ambassador to Uganda. This did not enhance South Africa’s gay friendly image following the not-so-compassionate vibes at the UN Security Council. Further South African oppositions to gay rights took place under the Zuma administration in the UN Human Rights Council in 2010, claiming that protection against sexual orientation discrimination would demean and dilute protection against racial discrimination; a mean-spirited claim that the South African ambassador soon took back, campaigning a year later for the UN Human Rights Council to adopt an unprecedented resolution expressing concern about discrimination and violence against sexual orientation.

Whilst Matjila managed to balance out the situation, taking South Africa’s anti-gay right views out of the spotlight, the issue has made the headlines again with the recent wave of official and thus open homophobia that recently flooded the region, stressed by Nigeria, Uganda and Liberia who adopted harsher laws, increasing penalties for LGBT individuals a few months ago. Taking penalties to a new level, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed into law sentences for not only gays but also anyone who does not expose gays as well as life sentences for what was labelled a ‘repeat offender’. This outrage put pressure on the South African government, forcing it to take a stand on the situation. Dilemma. Although South Africa tacitly criticised Uganda’s action, its stance on the matter did not seem genuine especially after the African National Congress (ANC) fiercely opposed to the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) attempts to introduce a motion in parliament condemning Uganda’s new law.

Its geographic position puts South Africa in a delicate place. Although foreign policy should ultimately reflect domestic policy, Pretoria must be careful to uphold its relations with other nations of the continent, especially with Uganda, which is considered a key ally.

With such a recent, homophobic history, a President who appoints an outspoken homophobe, guilty of hate speech, to his diplomacy staff in Uganda, a governing political party that refuses to condemn Uganda’s homophobic law, and an increase in corrective rape in South African townships, there seems to be a large gap between the inspiring leading role played by South Africa with regards to LGBT rights and the reality of the persisting homophobia that still lingers in the country. Yes, it has made incredible progress on paper and domestically, which should be used as an example to its neighbours, but the latter weaknesses with regards to Uganda show that unless authorities apply the values inherent in their constitution on an international level, South Africa’s credibility with respect to its gay-friendly laws will rapidly diminish.