This post was submitted by John "Jolly" Bavoso

It’s supposed to be the benefit of diminished expectations: You set the bar so low that it becomes difficult to be disappointed. That’s the theory, at least. In practice, however, when I’m presented with a situation like the one that’s playing out in Zimbabwe, a country where gay rights have never been likely to flourish and there are so many other political and economic issues to address simultaneously, I still feel a twinge of regret when I see opportunities to legislate LGBT equality pass by unacknowledged.

Zimbabwe is a country that I’ve written a lot about. Sadly, from a journalistic standpoint, the landlocked southern African state is like a terribly depressing gift that keeps on giving: There seems to always be some new tragic situation taking place to write about.

The country has been led by 86-year-old Robert Mugabe for over 20 years and his blatant subversion of the democratic process will likely ensure that his stint as President continues for years to come. Politically, the government is more or less split in half, with attempts at reform being mostly led by current Prime Minister and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who is now in the process of attempting to form a coalition government with Mugabe and his ruling party.

Compounding these issues is the fact that the country’s economy is literally in shambles. Zimbabwe has the dubious honor of being the go-to modern example of hyperinflation, with the annual inflation rate reaching 89.7 sextillion percent (aka 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent) in November, 2008. Things have gotten so bad that the 100 trillion dollar bill that was introduced in January, 2009 was rendered useless almost immediately upon distribution.

It’s not particularly surprising then that gay rights in the country have basically been a non-issue.  Male homosexuality remains illegal in the country and the government has carried out systematic violations of LGBT people’s human rights for years.  Mugabe has famously likened homosexuals to pigs and dogs and the subject remains highly taboo in the conservative society.

And yet, despite all of this, an opportunity to turn this trend around has presented itself in the last few weeks. Zimbabwe has undertaken the uncommon process of drafting a new constitution as part of a recent power-sharing deal between the two major opposing political parties currently operating in the government: Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and Tsvangirai’s MDC-T.

The drafting of a new constitution, while a rare occurrence, is also an incredible opportunity to insert LGBT rights into a country’s institutional structure where they previously haven’t existed. Zimbabwe’s neighbor to the south, South Africa, did just that in the mid-1990’s when it crafted its own post-apartheid constitution. Despite much opposition from the majority of the populace, through political maneuvering and international influence, the country became the first in the world to include sexual orientation in its national non-discrimination clause. While the South African case was pretty much exceptional in every way, a glimmer of hope still exists that lightning may strike twice somewhere else in the world.

Unfortunately, it’s not going to be in Zimbabwe, not this time:

Zimbabwe’s president says gay rights will not be protected in a constitution being drawn up under a power-sharing deal.

State radio on Friday quoted President Robert Mugabe saying that Western rights groups have called for constitutional reforms to include gay rights. He calls that “insanity.”

Alrighty then. That was fun while it lasted.

While Mugabe’s attitude should surprise absolutely no one, the second, and perhaps bigger, disappointment stemming from this scenario is that Tsvangirai, who agrees with Mugabe on approximately nothing, has won multiple international awards for his support of human rights and was even in the running for the Nobel Peace Prize last year, managed to find a rare common ground with the President over their mutual opposition to gay rights. The New York Times reports:

Mr. Tsvangirai’s response, according to the news media, was, “Why should a man seek to have a relationship with another man when women make up 52 percent of the population?”

On Friday, the prime minister’s spokesman, James Maridadi, tried to play down the significance of the remarks. “Tsvangirai was speaking off the cuff in a very lighthearted way… He wasn’t getting into the rights of gays. Whatever he said, it was a personal opinion, and he always invites people to agree or disagree with his personal opinions.”

Gay rights has not been a matter of friction between [Tsvangirai and Mugabe]. In fact, Mr. Tsvangirai’s party, the Movement for Democratic Change, has “no position on gay rights per se,” said its spokesman, Nelson Chamisa. “We are for human rights, but Zimbabweans are very conservative, and something like gay marriage is condemned, not just by our culture but by religion.”

He added, “We believe people should have the latitude to decide whatever is best for them. But — and I underline the word ‘but’ — the position of people in this country is that the word ‘gay’ should not appear in the constitution.”

Sigh. Another missed opportunity. And yet, the stubborn optimist in me can’t help but think it’s a minutely positive sign that this discussion has even occurred in the first place and that securing gay rights in the constitution was ever close enough to the realm of possibility that these questions were being asked.

What say you, Global Gaze readers? Were you surprised by these events? Disappointed? Totally unphased? Do you see the same the same tiny speck of hope I see, or am I just being naïve? How do you think the international community can best ensure that the next time such an opportunity presents itself, whether in Zimbabwe or any other country, that it is capitalized upon? Feel free to leave your thoughts in comment form below!

---

First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...

---