Organizing under pressure: authoritarianism, respectability politics, and lgbt advocacy in Rwanda

ABSTRACT

In 2009, following several countries including Burundi and Nigeria, a proposal was introduced in Rwanda to criminalize same-sex sex and lgbt activism. However, unlike the other countries, Rwanda’s Article 217 criminalization proposal was eliminated within months of its introduction. While this result can be understood as a success story, it also can elide the obstacles Rwandan activists experience when organizing for lgbt people. The cross-movement coalition that formed to oppose Article 217 specifically adopted a nonconfrontational strategy designed to work within the authoritarian political system in Rwanda. While activists framed the removal of Article 217 as aligned with existing government priorities, the dialogue strategy has clear limits when activists’ goals are to make further changes in Rwanda, particularly when government officials do not see further changes as aligned with their priorities. A combination of the authoritarian system and the government’s focus on economic development and individual advancement narrowly circumscribe what types of activism the government will accept. This imperative to conform to government expectations means activists adopt rhetoric and encourage lgbt people to engage in activities that are focused on how they appear as individuals. This focus on the individual elides the wider structural problems that exist in Rwanda that perpetuate discrimination againstlgbt people, particularly those who experience multiple marginalizations. Lgbt activism is circumscribed so it can occur in Rwanda, but this has consequences for how much change is advocated for and who benefits from this activism.

KEYWORDS:

• Africa
• social movements
• repression
• homophobia
• development

Acknowledgments

The WC Good Memorial Fellowship supported some of the research upon which this article is based. Thanks to all the Rwandans who agreed to be interviewed for this project. Further, thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments that significantly improved this article. Any remaining errors are my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. I use lgbt in lowercase in this article to indicate I am not referencing hegemonic western notions of gender identity and sexuality (Epprecht, 2012, pp. 223n1). Gender and sexuality are fluid, change over time, and differ across cultural contexts. There are historical examples of sexual diversity in the area that is now Rwanda (Watkins, 2017, pp. 128–130). These examples are often not recognisable as current hegemonic conceptions of LGBT, which is why I use the lowercase in this paper.

2. This research project was approved by the General Research Ethics Board at Queen’s University, reference # GPLST-101-15.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emma Paszat

Emma Paszat (she/her) is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto Mississauga. Paszat’s research interests include LGBTQ politics, human rights, and social movements.