ART. 2 – PARTICIPACION

In Uganda, as it is with the discourse of sexuality, under which homosexuality locates itself, homosexuality has historically been spoken of in ‘soft’ and ‘silent tones’ supposedly with intent to limit possible curiosity and public attention around it (Tamale 2007b). But this may not be a surprise. Uganda is a context characterized by societies with patriarchal structures. Thus it would not easily escape this temptation of silencing homosexual tendencies by leaving the act to operate underground. In fact, from a historical perspective as Thabo Msibi notes, this was part of [t]he political economy of heterosexuality” through which “indigenous homosexualities ” were silenced (Msibi 2011:64). For Bernard Matolino, this silence was almost automatic (2017). Matolino holds, “…in most traditional African societies people were not categorized according to their sexual orientation…those engaged in same-sex relations were never considered as existing outside the norm, hence homosexuality was never an issue” Matolino 2017:60).

This tendency to keep homosexuality undercover with minimal recognition has been the same in Uganda, whether in government documents such as the 1995 Uganda Constitution, colonial documents such as the 1950 Penal code, on the streets and within religious spaces. Rendering silence over homosexuality can be seen as a frame which intends to keep the aspect of homosexuality as far as possible from people’s memories. Homosexuality in this case remains obscure, and can easily win a characterization of ‘the unknown’ or ‘less known phenomenon’. This is so because when a phenomenon is selected and given salient framing it becomes easily known and remembered (Iyengar, 1990; Namusoga 2017).

Where-in government documents homosexuality has been referred to, the language has been vague. Politicians as well as religious leaders who have happened to speak about homosexuality in public have always used coded and consciously chosen language, presumably that which is thought to be favored by the public domain. These ‘soft’ tones are particularly exposed through certain linguistic expressions which attempt to describe what homosexuality and homosexual acts entail. For instance, expressions such as “the unspeakable acts”, “the unnatural acts”, or even stating it as “acts too shameful or so bad to name” have always been

used in reference to homosexuality (Nyanzi and Karamagi 2015; Lunyiigo 2011; Faupel 2007). The ‘unspeakable and undiscussed’ frame in reference to homosexuality is related to the historical role played by early explorers and ethnographers. It cannot be overlooked that the works of early European explorers and ethnographers in Uganda and the rest of Africa became points of reference in generating knowledge on homosexuality (Faupel 2007, Tamale 2007b).

Early European explorers such as Richard Burton who also attempted to carry out geographical ethnographies on the prevalence of homosexuality exonerated societies of the African-south as having been merely introduced to the practice. In his work entitled Terminal essay, published in 1886 Burton states: “Roman civilization carried pederasty also to Northern Africa, where it took firm root, while the Negro and Nereid races to the South ignore the erotic perversion, except where imported by foreigners” (Burton 1886:222). Other studies such as that done by the renowned Catholic theologian and ethnographer John Faupel also frame the Ugandan society and those south of the Sahara as inherently devoid of homosexual practice. Rahul notes that Faupel’s study does much to “accord with a more general trope in the colonial archive of sodomy as endemic amongst Arabs but unknown in sub-Saharan Africa” (Rahul 2014:9). Richard Burton as well as John Faupel both suggest that historically, homosexuality was ‘unknown’ and only came to be known to the people of Uganda by introduction. This type of framing has continued to form a radical background even to contemporary arguments that view homosexuality as a foreign phenomenon in Uganda. This, combined with the derogative expressions attributed to the practice would most probably be one of the indicators as to why societies such as Uganda dominantly express hostility towards the practice. This particular framing therefore forms a favorable environment for the Ugandan society to revolt against homosexuality especially in incidences where the practice attempts to come out of concealment. A review of literature on the history of homosexuality in Uganda further suggest that early explorers and ethnographers did not act alone in disseminating knowledge on homosexuality but in close affirmations with the colonial government and early Christian missionaries.

One of the contributions of the British colonial administration and the early Christian missionaries in Uganda was to develop a certain feeling among the Ugandan society that homosexuality was absolutely unwelcome and rejected (Msibi 2011, Ward 2015). While the British colonial government declared the supposed homosexual acts as unnatural through the Penal codes, thus punishable by law, the Christian missionaries framed it as a sin and demanded acts of repentance (Long 2003, Ward 2015). Homosexuality was in this case well expressed as

a ‘vice’ from which the Ugandan society needed to be protected at all cost (Long 2003:256). One could then hold that the British colonial government was one of the powers that triggered a belief that it was not enough to simply disregard homosexuality, but necessary to establish formal legal frameworks against the practice (Msibi 2011:68; Asal and Sommer 2016:13). The implication of this was that homosexuality criminalization in Uganda gained a formal framework as well as a background of reference. This could have been assimilated by the Ugandan society. An explanation for this assimilation would be, that sodomy laws that had been introduced and supported by a colonial power had become friendly to dominant heterosexual norms of the Ugandan society. It is not surprising that contemporary arguments within the Ugandan society could easily refer to colonial sodomy laws and traditional Christian teachings as a reference for the continuous rejection of homosexuality. The aspect of rejection triggers a view that frames homosexuality as a rejected practice in Uganda.