…and which one, therefore, should we ban between the two?

In my forthcoming paper, I argue that as Malawians, we must choose one thing regarding homosexuality. We cannot have it both ways!

If, as a county or society maintains that homosexuality is Foreign, ungodly, Western, (and/or, therefore), un-Malawian (whatever that means, really), then that’s very fine with me. I am, in Polemarchus’ words, “ready to do battle” at “Malawi’s” side and defend this position, with my life even, taking “up arms against anyone” forwarding a proposition to the contrary, that Homosexuality is not un-Malawian or not un-sub-Saharan Africa.

However, if we accept and adopt this premise, and within this line of reasoning, call for the banning and criminalisation of homosexuality and anyone who identifies as an LGBT+ person, then we should also consider placing all foreign religious beliefs, be it Christianity and Islam, within the very same pot where we place homosexuality. Under Sections 153 and 154 of our Penal Code (ignore the fact that most of the sections introduced before 1994 are deep-colonial-rooted), we shall have a sub-section banning these foreign religions as un-natural, foreign and contrary to the order of Malawian (read African) nature – and criminalising anyone practicing and identifying with these foreign beliefs. This would be our State!

As we take up arms against homosexuality for being foreign to what constitute Malawian or godly or natural, let’s make such religious beliefs illegal for being unMaravian – the weaponry through which the colonial masters weaponised to sabotage not only Malawi but almost the whole of Africa, from Cape Town, down South to Cairo, up North; and from Eritrea in the East to Freetown and Dakar in the West!

A 14-year prison sentence could also be imposed for those who practice any religion that the Bantu, the Zulus, or other indigenous groups did not have prior to colonialism and slavery. Isn’t it a fact that these religions are indisputably not native to Malawi or Africa, and are relatively recent, having, for example, been introduced to the people of Malawi around the mid-1800s, less than 200 years ago?

It is my strongest belief that we must avoid cherrypicking what is Western or Eastern and therefore foreign between homosexuality, on the one hand, and Malawi’s predominant religious beliefs, on the other. Of course, one can even argue that if sections of the penal code that are against homosexuality have deep roots in colonial era, then there is something the colonialists saw was native and, therefore, against their foreign religious beliefs which they were introducing to control the natives.

Could it be that the natives were engaging in practices that the colonialists viewed as contrary to the colonialists concept of the ‘order of nature,’ similar to how these colonialists perceived gender according to their prescribed norms of womanhood – reduced to that of a housewife, a mere child bearer – which the natives normalised and adopted? Were such conceptualisation not the basis that even transformed ‘gule wa mkulu‘ into a dance mainly performed by men, while reducing women as backing vocalists – a transformation traced to the men’s desire to escape ‘Thangata,’ a form of slavery the British and other colonialists in Malawi and other parts of Africa practice which eliminated the need to transport people to the Americas following the abolition of slavery as men were being commanded to work in estates – a transformation that left the colonialists with villages full of women and ancestral spirits but not men – since women were housewives and men were the ones who were expected to be working in estates and mines? Ohh excuse my ignorance, I digress! Of course, we can re-open this premise for debate at a later date.

What I mean here is, between homosexuality and the religion currently dominant in Malawi, which foreign phenomenon holds more significance, considering the core argument is that the former is un-Malawian and goes against Malawian culture? So, where do we position the latter? Is it not just as uncultural to Malawi as is homosexuality – if I am allowed to use that line of reasoning? Which foreign element, then, should we ban –  even though, just as Angela Davis puts it, and rightly so, “we know that gender, and especially the binary structure of gender, is totally constructed”?

As Angela Davis argues, not so long ago, these same religions, much like we are doing with sexuality now, did not consider non-white people as humans. Race, as socially constructed as gender is, was the backbone through which religion defended the enslavement of people based on their race; supported the partition, colonialism, and illegal occupation of lands in different parts of the world such as Africa, Asia, and the Americas. And most importantly, in most of these parts, these foreign religions to these lands also fuelled and defended with scriptures the genocide of people like aboriginals (all on the basis of race).

To conclude this entry, just replace ‘race’ with ‘sexuality!’

*Religious organisations, led by the Episcopal Conference of Malawi (ECM) in Malawi, and a similar body in Zambia, have opposed in strongest terms Pope Francis’ approval of same-sex blessings.