Association with Gate Keepers as a tool of influence.

The findings have shown that the coming of the AAEs to Uganda did not happen by chance. On contrary, it seems to have been effected following a well secured environment. This environment or setting involved the association with local religious leaders and local politicians (Kaoma 2014a). Therefore, this particular setting may have played an important role for correspondence as well as facilitating the AAEs’ subsequent coming to Uganda. The AAEs’ association with gatekeepers can be argued to have succeeded in winning over the Ugandan public to the advantage of the AAEs. In fact, in the follow up meeting, as it will be discussed in chapter seven, the AAEs are referred to by a local religious leader as “our friends”. The nature and effect of this correspondence can be analyzed along certain key protocols employed by colonialists while seeking to establish colonial rule.

The history of colonialism suggests that the colonialists have always devised different ways through which to successfully succeed in their colonial agenda. While some colonial powers chose to employ a direct rule tactic, others opted for an indirect approach in certain contexts (Afigbo 2005, Rutanga 2011). Indirect rule from ancient history of colonialism to 19th century modern times “has been employed to varying extents by different empires” (Afigbo 2005:271). It is a system under which an imperial power makes use of the indigenous political institutions

of a conquered territory for its administration” (Afigbo 2005:271). One of the reasons for such a move was to expedite acceptance by the local populations while the colonial government continued its penetration into the local fabric (Rutanga 2011:156). Further, it seems to have been a system through which the colonial government made to its advantage, the available contextual tools to serve its purpose. Tools such as local systems of governance, local leaders as spies, local customs, beliefs and local languages were exploited in promoting colonial rule (Rutanga 2011:156).

The tactic of using locally available tools in disseminating information and in alluring locally available support is still much alive when local and foreign contexts meet. This can be pinned as an indirect approach by which an external power of influence attempts to avoid a direct approach to a local phenomenon.

The AAEs’ approach to the question of homosexuality, in the Ugandan context, depicts similar tactics employed by colonial masters under indirect rule. Prior to the coming of the AAEs, Faith-based American non-governmental organizations had already succeeded in penetrating the Ugandan society. These organizations were either on religious or humanitarian missions. Their penetration into Uganda can be stretched back most notably to the early 1980’s, when evangelical missionaries from North America began arriving in the country (Kaggwa 2017). Following this arrival, the North American evangelical missionary work in Uganda has attracted large numbers of people including Local Born Again Pastors (LBAP). Some of these LBAP have received education and pastoral training in the United States of America (Kaoma in God Loves Uganda 2013). This however, is not an isolated phenomenon exclusive to the Ugandan context but a confirmation of what Kapya Kaoma observes. This is to say that US conservative evangelicals have succeeded in penetrating many African societies through various networks that put them at an admirable state in societies they meet (Kaoma 2009:8). This point of argument resonates with the findings in this study that the AAEs did not hold their conference in isolation but in close contact with the Local Religious leaders and Local Christian based organizations such as, Family Life Network. This formed the body of local gate keepers who helped in spreading the message of AAEs.

Among the key Ugandan based institutions, that had close ties with the American anti- homosexual evangelicals at the time, was Family Life Network (FLN). According to the Family Life Network, its agenda is directed towards “restore[ing] family values and morals of the Ugandan society, by building strong families and youth with strong morals and character, through the promotion of value based morals and life skills across the population regardless of

gender, race, ethnic, social or religious background” (FLN 2017). The mission of FLN suggests a society that has purportedly lost, or, is on the brink of losing its core defining elements. The family institution according to the FLN is thought to be exposed to threats such as: the failure to recognize children as a blessing from God, the decreasing levels of accountability among parents, the increasing rates of divorce, “Polygamy, adultery, materialism, breakdown of the traditional values, adoption of the global culture and the general degeneration of our morals as a society” (FLN 2017).

It is within this framework in which leaders of FLN argue that homosexuality is one of the vices that contributes to the breakdown of families. As such to restore its former glory, vices such as homosexuality must be eliminated, at least from Uganda.

It should be noted that at the time of the 2009 AAEs conference, FLN was argued to have had close relationship with a number of U.S faith-based organizations such as, the “Family and Abiding Truth Ministries” (ATM) of Scott Lively, the “disbanded ‘ex-gay’ group Exodus International” of Don Schmiege as well as the “International Healing Foundation” of Caleb Lee Brudidge (Kaoma 2014a:21). In fact, according to Kaoma, the 2009 Anti-homosexual conference, held by AAEs was organized and publicized by the Uganda-based FLN under the leadership of Stephen Langa (Kaoma 2014a:21).

The relationship between the FLN and ATM draws much from the ideological concerns especially around the aspect of homosexuality. In both the ATM and FLN, the aspect of family as an institution is central. Both organizations argue to be pro-family defenders and ‘family value restoring institutions.’ While pro-homosexual activism is regarded by both organizations as a danger to the nucleus of society, the family, anti-homosexual activism on the other hand is welcomed and encouraged (Lively 2009a:125). ATM holds that “Our agenda is to create a more family-friendly world. Our strategy is to identify, train and organize pro-family activists to promote marriage and family as the most important and valued elements of society” (Lively 2009a:126). This resonates with the vision of FLN which incorporates concepts such as “restoring family values and morals…by building strong families” as well promoting “value based morals and life skills” (FLN 2017).

Popular local evangelical pastors such as Stephen Langa and Martin Ssempa are some of the local pastors with influence in Uganda which welcomed the AAEs message. The existence of the Local pastors’ assertiveness over homosexuality contributed to the AAEs’ influence towards the legislation of the 2014 AHL in two folds. It could be argued first that the local pastors assisted the AAEs by smoothening out the Ugandan environment to appreciate the

AAEs’ anti-homosexual message with ease. This helped the AAEs to add their voice along the Ugandan society’s voice who see homosexuality as a western imposition- which is contrary to ‘Ugandan culture’ (Nyanzi 2013a). By adding their voices to the dominant anti- homosexuality local voices in Uganda, the debate on homosexuality was further energized. This explains the reason why the findings of this study do not indicate that the AAEs received any resistance whether as foreign religious leaders, or, by their anti-homosexuality message during their conference.

Secondly, the existence of Local pastors’ assertiveness over homosexuality regulates the essentialist position that sees the AAEs as initiators of the 2014 AHL in Uganda. Langa is well known as “a western-backed pastor”, also described as “a conservative moralist” (Kaoma 2014a:72). His influence in Uganda is depicted by his work which suggests that he is a defender of the family institution in Uganda. Langa has also been described in some scholarship as “a fierce opponent of reproductive justice and one of Uganda’s most influential purveyors of homophobia” (Kaoma 2014a:71). Despite this, Langa presents himself as a concerned elder for a society under the attack of homosexuality advances:

As an elder in an influential church in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, East Africa, and the Executive Director of a Ugandan based family ministry working to restore family values and morals, I have come face to face with these vices over the last ten years. Our organization has visited over 700 schools, reached over 350,000 youth and have counseled tens of thousands. I have also read and researched widely on a variety of vices in several nations of the world (Langa 2011:1).

Apart from Langa, another well-known pastor to have steered the debate on homosexuality in the public domain was Martin Sempa. His theological position in Uganda’s modern church can be described as that which advocates for conversion and a return to the authority of biblical teachings. Ssempa situates himself as a “representative of the fast-growing strands of Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity that are coming to dominate the public and political sphere in Uganda and many other African countries” (Van Klinken and Zebracki 2016:90). As a self-made campaigner of Ugandan morals, Ssempa advocates against homosexuality, claiming it to be a dirty practice which involves the eating of human wastes by those practicing it (Van Klinken and Zebracki 2016). According to Ssempa the practice of homosexuality has failed to pass the Ugandan moral approval. In his views, Ssempa is critical of foreign governments and foreign leaders for challenging anti-homosexual activism in Uganda.

In the film God Loves Uganda, Williams documents some assertions of Pastor Ssempa: “I wrote a letter to Barrack Obama last week. I said, ‘Barrack Obama, we do not fight sodomy

because of who they are, but what they do. The repugnant acts which they do.” (Ssempa in Williams 2013). It is clear that Ssempa makes use of phrases such as “We do not fight…” purposefully. Ssempa attempts to state that the fight against homosexuality in Uganda is communally motivated. Having chosen to speak in a collective figure of speech, he attempts to inspire his audience to approve his words as the voice of the Ugandan society. Not only does Pastor Ssempa inspire his audience to rise against homosexuality, he also uses various descriptions and explanations to explain why choosing pro-homosexual activism would be equated to committing moral, and health related risks.

The figure below by Benedicte Desrus,34 showing Pastor Ssempa, at the 16th February 2010 Press conference, using multimedia to expose what he calls the evils of homosexuality (Van Klinken and Zebracki 2016:90).

Figure 5.

Ssempa seems to be convinced that homosexuality is a perverse practice. The images, being shown by Ssempa, attempt to stir the public into a conviction, that homosexuality is undesirable in society. It is in fact to “frame homosexuality as an inherently perverse practice that is threatening the moral order of society and therefore should be outlawed” (Van Klinken and Zebracki 2016:89). By using multimedia, coupled with gestures demonstrating how homosexuality is done, the Pastor appears to raise his audience’s emotions such as, sadness, shock, surprise and disgust. The approach used by the Pastor to communicate his message and

the nature of his Audience’ reaction appear to convey a worldview that homosexuality is intolerable in the society and is a concern for the people in the Ugandan society. The Pastor’s descriptive approach, coupled with the graphic images, seems to be very much relevant as a tool to convince the public of the dangers of homosexuality and why it has to be held with disgust.

The existence of local religious voices such as that of Ssempa and Langa, who are famous evangelical pastors, cannot be taken for granted given their probable implications. Apart from exposing their personal perception on homosexuality they also reveal their preparedness to corroborate with other forces that would seek to further their attitude on homosexuality. Given their roles as religious leaders, their positionality offers them an authoritative voice to solicit the societies’ approval. Moreover, in Uganda, religious leaders such as those who belong to new evangelical and Pentecostal churches, do attract people’s attention and command influence over peoples’ attitudes and ways of life at a competitive level with mainline churches (Tusingire 2003:186). Henceforth, it can be argued that although the existence of anti- homosexuality local religious voices may have been used by the AAEs to their advantage, the same voices demonstrates that the AAEs contribution towards 2014 AHL was to some extent, dependent on how local religious leaders perceived the practice. The negative perception of some local religious leaders on homosexuality further confirms the findings of this study. Among these, is that prior to the coming of the AAEs, the Ugandan society had experiences and fears over homosexuality without necessarily being provoked by the AAEs. Among these fears included a conviction that homosexuality was against God’s teachings as well as God’s directive to procreation. The findings have shown to this extent that homosexuality was regarded sinful and evil.

6.3.3. Conclusion

The chapter attempted to explore and understand how the AAEs contributed to shaping the Ugandan society’s views over homosexuality. The contribution of the AAEs’ was found to be multifaceted. On the one hand, it draws from the social and cultural backgrounds of the Ugandan context while on the other it does so, from the Christian religious based beliefs. The chapter has found out that the AAEs proposed an anti-homosexual theology which described the practice of homosexuality as sinful and a disobedience of God’s authority. Further, human procreation was argued to be in danger in a society that encouraged the practice of homosexuality. The chapter also found that the AAEs persuasion followed a particular

framework described in the study as a framework of influence. The framework attempts to present the aspect of homosexuality as a ‘Problem’, to which exists a ‘Solution.’ It was found that the failure to act in eradicating the ‘Problem’ or the resolute to act along the proposed ‘Solution’ model, all produce a ‘Consequence.’ It was found that this ‘Consequence’ triggers ‘Action.’ In the chapter that follows, the study presents the findings from the reactions of the Ugandan society after the AAEs conference. The next chapter (seven) analyzes and discusses, to what extent does the reactions of the Ugandan society demonstrate trends of the AAEs’ influence.

CHAPTER SEVEN

TOWARDS THE 2014 CRIMINALIZATION OF