“We Are Not Gays”: Regime Prervatn and the Policizatn of Inty Mugabe’s Zimbabwe | Ain Studi Review | Cambridge Core

Contents:

• “WE ARE NOT GAYS”: REGIME PRERVATN AND THE POLICIZATN OF INTY MUGABE’S ZIMBABWE
• ZIMBABWEAN UPLE MAND GAY RIGHTS
• CULTURE, LAW, AND DISCRIMATN AGAST GAY AND LBIAN LEARNERS ZIMBABWE
• FOR GAY ZIMBABWEANS, A DIFFICULT POLIL CLIMATE

“WE ARE NOT GAYS”: REGIME PRERVATN AND THE POLICIZATN OF INTY MUGABE’S ZIMBABWE

The marriage bill that has brought up the ncept of civil partnerships has been precise fg as a relatnship between a man and a woman term on s own beg terpreted ternatnally to mean people same sex relatnships has ed the muny and bet to want to remove notg that bee has a gay ternatnal terpretatn th do not uphold the untri moral standards. Frossard Sgy fills this gap wh a thorough examatn of the strategi of policized homophobia ployed by the Robert Mugabe regime, their nnectn to hegemonic masculy, the liberatn war, and land qutns, and the ndns which led them to lose their potency and ultimately fail to save Mugabe om mountg domtic challeng.

Frossard Sgy preenche ta lacuna através uma análise exstiva das tratégias polização da homofobia utilizadas pelo regime Robert Mugabe, a sua relação a masculida hegemóni, a guerra libertação e os problemas da terra, bem o as circunstâncias que levaram a que persse eficácia e abasse por não nseguir proteger Mugabe face aos crcent safs ternos. The, as well as other important parts of the prepared speech, actually reflected a recurrg theme of Zimbabwean polil disurse, the ia that Print Mugabe and his party (the Zimbabwe Ain Natnal Unn-Patrtic Front [ZANU-PF]) stood as a bulwark of antilonialism agast the Wt’s imperialist attacks, which clud the so-lled promotn of homosexualy.

ZIMBABWEAN UPLE MAND GAY RIGHTS

This article th argu two pots: first that, buildg upon a nceptn of Zimbabwean inty that he had long worked to fe, 2015 Print Mugabe attempted to leverage a growg clash of disurs around homosexualy Ai to strengthen his posn natnal and regnal polics at a time of domtic crisis. Such a thick scriptn is necsary to fully unrstand not only the dynamics and the potency of policized homophobia Zimbabwe, but also the erosn of s power, and to do jtice to the historil specifici of the se as well as to the plexy of policized homophobia as a state strategy. Though there have been some misgivgs related to the e of homophobia as overly foced on fear and elidg lol specifici (van Klken & Chando Reference van Klken and Chando2016; Thoron Reference Thoron2014), most of the recent lerature begs wh the ia of gog beyond personal hostily to foc on the strategic e of the negative meangs associated wh same-sex sexuali by actors seekg to achieve polil goals—gog beyond the notn of fear self to the parameters of s stmentalizatn (Currier Reference Currier2010; McKay & Angotti Reference McKay and Angotti2016; Serrano-Amaya Reference Serrano-Amaya2018).

This analysis th follows Ashley Currier g the term “policized homophobia” to bt reflect the ia of a purposive strategy leveraged agast multiple forms of opposn, what she terms a liberately activated public spectacle, but a siar ncept of purposeful state strategy n be found unr the umbrella of polil homophobia most works on the topic (Bosia & Weiss Reference Bosia and Weiss2013; Currier Reference Currier2018; McKay & Angotti Reference McKay and Angotti2016).

CULTURE, LAW, AND DISCRIMATN AGAST GAY AND LBIAN LEARNERS ZIMBABWE

Though the tactics are part of a wir effort at nstctg the natn agast s perceived enemi, policized homophobia prents some unique characteristics and serv to be explored as a standalone phenomenon wh specific nsequenc (Currier Reference Currier2010; Serrano-Amaya Reference Serrano-Amaya2018). This distctivens has been approached two ways: s unique relatnship to masculy and s nstctn as a genred strategy, wh thors relyg on femist lerature showg how homophobia works as a stctural, stutnal mechanism of reproductn of a normative masculy associated wh the natn and bolsters masculist ntrol over the state, often by rewrg s history the procs (Currier Reference Currier2010, Reference Currier2018; McKay & Angotti Reference McKay and Angotti2016); and the ia that policized homophobia is often ed pre-emptively, plac where there are none or few pre-existg mands for gay rights along a Wtern mol, which distguish om other strands of inty polics that rely on lolly entrenched divisns (Bosia & Weiss Reference Bosia and Weiss2013). In the Ain ntext, the other characteristic of policized homophobia found almost unanimoly the lerature is s pictn of the Wt as an imperialist force which needs to be risted; most lears mobilizg policized homophobia ually do so by associatg homosexualy wh “whe culture” and nstctg as an outsi force threateng the lol sovereignty, culture, and valu that the natnalist rhetoric seeks to fend, th both nttg and externalizg homosexualy (Bompani Reference Bompani, van Klken and Chando2016; Currier Reference Currier2018; Kaoma Reference Kaoma2018; van Klken & Chando Reference van Klken and Chando2016; Manyonganise Reference Manyonganise, van Klken and Chando2016; McKay & Angotti Reference McKay and Angotti2016).

There is also agreement on the rise of policized homophobia Ai recent years and the need to nsir s regnal dimensns, cludg the e of siar rhetoric and trop such as the “unAinns” of homosexualy and s immoraly (McKay & Angotti Reference McKay and Angotti2016; Bosia & Weiss Reference Bosia and Weiss2013).

However, the parallels mt not be nsted as signs of a uniform or unifyg phenomenon; though policized homophobia has risen as a key element of many polil stggl, be policized for different reasons and through different mechanisms each untry, and most scholars ll for a nuanced, -pth approach of each se to weigh the fluence of a wi range of factors such as socenomic tensns, relign, mocratizatn, and specific historil trajectori (Awondo et al. Kapya Kaoma has hypothized that the succs of the anti-gay movement is due to the existence of domtic and global astctur for social mobilizatn and to the impact of globalizatn, which mak cultural imperialism a potent threat (Kaoma Reference Kaoma2018); and Tara McKay and Nile Angotti state that anti-homosexual disurs “are ma meangful through their tersectn wh other social and cultural logics particular historil moments” (McKay & Angotti Reference McKay and Angotti2016:401), th unrlg the need to explore each se separately.

FOR GAY ZIMBABWEANS, A DIFFICULT POLIL CLIMATE

However, there have been few studi followg this le of quiry and seekg to unrstand not only what ma policized homophobia a powerful polil tool a specific ntext but also whether uld lose s potency and what factors would lead to such an oute, a gap that this article attempts to fill. Studyg Namibia, Currier argu that homophobia “unrps Ain natnalist masculi” (Currier Reference Currier2010:113) and is sential to the retellg of the patrtic histori of the liberatn stggle which reaffirm the masculist ntrol of the state by the liberatn movements. Therefore, “the reassertn of male power amed much of the natnalist disurse, ” and those who did not support the armed stggle “were brand as sell-outs/quislgs, loyal ‘lapdogs, ’ effemate (and often homosexual), too wardly to lay down their life for fay, culture and natn” (Parpart Reference Parpart, Parpart and Zalewski2008:187).

Some have attributed this phenomenon and Mugabe’s dislike and creasgly equent attacks agast homosexuals to his relig tn and personal views (Epprecht Reference Epprecht2005, Reference Epprecht2013a), wh three episos often mentned to expla his vilence, cludg the outg of former print Canaan Banana, which led to persistent mors about past and prent officials and durably embarrassed the ernment (Gaidzanwa Reference Gaidzanwa and Ndlovu-Gatsheni2015); the 1999 attempt by Brish gay activist Peter Tatchell to have Mugabe arrted for torture, an episo which “angered Mugabe so much that he lled Tony Blair and his ernment ‘ltle men’ and acced them of ‘g gay gangster tactics’” (Gaidzanwa Reference Gaidzanwa and Ndlovu-Gatsheni2015:163); and the accatns of same-sex relatns leveraged agast the Mister of Informatn Jonathan Moyo 2002 which aga embarrassed the ernment (Human Rights Watch 2003). First, mt be noted that Mugabe displayed no overt hostily to homosexuals before the rise of opposn and enomic troubl the 1990s, spe havg potentially known about Banana sce the 1980s (Epprecht Reference Epprecht2013b; Manyonganise Reference Manyonganise, van Klken and Chando2016).

Ined, his first famo attack me 1995 at the Zimbabwe Internatnal Book Fair; the ernment prohibed the Gays and Lbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) anizatn om attendg the Fair, and Mugabe jtified his actns by sayg that he “[found] outrageo and repugnant to [his] human nscience that such immoral and repulsive anizatns like those of homosexuals, who offend both agents of the law of nature and the morals and relig beliefs poed by our society, should have any advot our midst or even elsewhere the world” (Campbell Reference Campbell2003:155). This rhetoric, repeated over the years cludg when the ernment banned GALZ om attendg the Fair aga 1996, amalgamat many of the trop ually found anti-gay disurse cludg relig beliefs, moraly, and cultural particularism (Epprecht Reference Epprecht2013b; Kaoma Reference Kaoma2018).