Why Bishop Akinola is wrong

In a country where more than fifty percent of the population live below the poverty line, and a low-level civil war over resources is brewing the most pressing concerns amongst legislators and the self-appointed moral guardians of the country is the theoretical threat posed by the small and largely powerless homosexual population. It would be funny if it was not tragic. Despite the ridiculousness of it all we must resist the impulse to ask if there are not more important matters to discuss – because this debate exposes the root of Nigeria’s problem – our inability to live side by side to difference and respect it. I won’t get into debating whether same sex marriage or relationships are valid within Christianity and the Anglican Communion - that is an internal matter for members of the Anglican Church, not one that concerns the greater body politic of Nigeria. However, the archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Reverend Peter J. Akinola has issued a position paper on a bill currently before the Nigerian house of legislators to ‘prohibit the marriage between persons of the same gender, solemnization of same and for other matters related therewith’. In this paper, presented to the Nigerian House of Assembly, the good bishop lays out the Church of Nigeria’s support and disagreements with the bill. It is only right that the church have a voice in the direction of the country – freedom of speech is a value we must cherish and uphold even when we disagree with what is being said. Nevertheless, the arguments the church makes in support of the bill; arguments which are in fact the entire basis for this bill can and should be refuted.

In his preamble, Akinola says ‘the present trend in certain quarters to cast the bible aside and foist on the world a religion that does not have god and the bible at the centre was why...the introduction of this bill at this stage of national development is one of the best things to have happened to this nation’ – expressing his joy that the bill will confirm his position on the internal argument he and others are conducting within Anglican church. He goes on to say that that the bill should be upheld because of a number of biblical passages, citing a number of biblical passages, including Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1 26:27, and First Corinthians 6:9. Well, he’s wrong. Nigeria is a secular country, under the rule of a constitution. The church has a legitimate voice but its concerns and guiding principles cannot be the basis of the laws of the country. Akinola continues in a section entitled ‘Marriage is a creation of god between man and woman’, that since marriage was created by God ‘those who argue for the legalization of this unwholesome practice on the claims of human rights must first of all recognize and respect the right of god to order his creation as he wants it. Human Rights therefore should not infringe on the right of God to remain God!’ It beggars belief that God, and especially the Christian God who reputedly flooded the world to maintain its purity needs defending from a small group of human beings. He maintains homosexuality is a threat to procreation. The truth is that the greatest threat to procreation in Africa and elsewhere is the war and famine rampant throughout the world and in Nigeria – a crisis to which the archbishop speaks too little. Globalisation is held up in Archbishop Akinola’s paper as the root of the degradation of Nigerian youth and ergo the ‘rise’ in homosexuality, linking it with the rise of gay churches and fellowships in the country. Last I checked, however imperfectly, Nigeria’s constitution upholds freedom of religion. If certain groups of people interpret the bible to allow same sex marriage, the bishop can disagree to granting them communion within his church but he has no right to infringe on their freedom of belief or practice. He goes on to say individualism is a western influence that threatens an African sense of community. This is the frequent argument that for Africans to be happy we must all agree, a lie that we know all too well leads to war. A sense of community is not fostered when the leaders of any community call for the extermination of any one group or sanction their persecution. The family which Akinola proclaims to be the nucleus of any society is under great strain and threat in Nigeria by the twin evils of corruption and poverty than any group of homosexuals will ever be. For good measure, the bishop says the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to an increase in male prostitution. It is a logic fallacy that is hard to take seriously. Surely if gay men and women are married they would have little cause to prostitute themselves? The institution of marriage so well practiced by Nigerian men has failed to eradicate female prostitution – in fact, the imbalance in power between men and women in society is at the root of this problem, how then will persecuting and prosecuting a small group of men and women who want to get married and live in peace eradicate any social vices?

To ward off those pesky international human rights activists, the bishop invokes the sovereignty of Nigeria to make laws according to the wishes of its citizens - and the good bishop is right. Nigeria is a sovereign nation which has bound itself to the laws of an international system, one of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It entitles everyone to freedom from persecution. It is true Nigeria’s legislators can pass this bill, but in doing so, they will be confirming all the worst impressions of Nigeria and Africa as a place of intolerance, persecution and strife. Lastly, the bishop wheels out the shibboleth of the west’s pernicious influence on Africa including the slave trade, the world bank and IMF programmes and all the horrors of our post-colonial history. Yes, we have to acknowledge that very often the west’s influence on Nigeria has often been malevolent - but it is not westerners entering the National Assembly to protest for their rights; it is Nigerians, gay and proud who are affirming their right to exist. It is ironic that the loudest applauders of their persecution are the Church of Nigeria and Muslim leaders, two institutions established in Nigeria by a colonising western nation and Arab invaders respectively,. Now if that isn’t unnatural, unprofitable, unhealthy, un-cultural, un-African and un-Nigerian?

Dele Meiji

Why South Africa’s latest party is to be welcomed

It’s the latest drama in the history of the rainbow nation, but the arrival of the as yet unnamed and breakaway party out of the ashes of Thabo Mbeki’s ousting from power has prompted murmurs of unease within South Africa and elsewhere. The ANC, always an uneasy alliance of communists, trade union activists and anti-apartheid fighters has worked hard to maintain its internal unity and indeed dominance in Africa’s strongest democracy, yet the cracks have always been evident. The tensions between the forces of the left such as COSATU, Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party, and the market oriented wings of the ANC, embodied by former president Thabo Mbeki, have coalesced around the neo-liberal route to development and economic prosperity the country has followed since its ‘independence’ in 1994. It is anger over the fact, that despite ten years or more of ANC government, unemployment amongst black South Africans remains at 40% while corporations and a few individuals have grown rich that powered the vote against Mbeki’s chairmanship of the ANC and secured the role for the controversial populist politician, Jacob Zuma. The high profile battle inside and outside of the courts to convict Zuma on charges of corruption is what finally brought down Mbeki and triggered the political split now consuming the ANC. Mosiuoa Lekota, a former defence minister officially broke with the ANC and called a convention of like-minded south Africans. The split, according to the BBC is primarily over three things, ideological differences over economic policies, with the breakaway faction leaning to the right and in support of Thabo Mbeki’s policies, a clash of personalities, and more darkly, tribal divisions. The last reason is perhaps the one to be feared the most, that South Africa’s politics will increasingly become like that of the rich tapestry of basket cases to its north, spelling an end to the ‘miracle’ that has bedazzled the world for ten years.

There are some reasons why this is unlikely to happen, not least the existence of a civil society that is more vibrant than most, and the existence of the Inkatha Zulu party which is unlikely to welcome any encroachment of its political terrain. Yet there is enough popular anger in South Africa as we saw in the recent xenophobic riots to force South Africans to seek an alternative to the neo-liberal model that has dominated the country’s politics over the past ten years. Though the new party is yet to formulate any policies and is unlikely to stray too far away from Thabo Mbeki’s neo-liberal ones, its existence should be welcomed. Not least because its success would represent a mature turn for South Africa’s democracy; currently the ANC carries 70% of the national vote. It’s likely that this is less to do with South Africans great love for the ANC, though no doubt this does play a part, but more to do with the lack of viable alternatives. A new party, led primarily by leaders with an anti-apartheid and ANC pedigree would do much to enrich debate in South Africa; it would also guard against the apathy and corruption that seem to have become a sub-culture with the ANC.

The current electoral system in the country would also come under increasing pressure for reform, if a mass movement of black South Africans could be gathered behind the new party, to make it more representative. Currently, MPs are picked by party lists rather than directly elected by their constituents – a system stacked in favour of the ruling party and more relevant to a revolutionary outfit than a modern democratic nation. Lastly, as black South Africans in particular become differentiated by income, the existence of a party of the neo-liberal right might be good for the ANC, allowing it to focus and position itself as what it was always aimed to be, a party of the people.