The British Foreign Office, in its infinite wisdom, has seen fit to condemn Ghana’s proposed anti-LGBTQ+ bill. One must ask: is this a principled stand for human rights, or merely the latest instalment of the Commonwealth’s long tradition of paternalistic meddling? The answer, as ever, lies somewhere in the murky waters of historical irony.
Ghana, a nation that threw off the shackles of colonial rule, now finds itself chided by its former master for legislating according to its own cultural and religious mores. The British, meanwhile, once criminalised homosexuality with a ferocity that would make a Puritan blush. The 1885 Labouchere Amendment, that infamous piece of Victorian legislation, made ‘gross indecency’ a crime punishable by hard labour.
Oscar Wilde, that great wit and martyr, was its most famous victim. Today, London lectures Accra on tolerance. One might call this progress.
One might also call it the height of hypocrisy. The anti-LGBTQ+ bill, formally titled the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, is a deeply conservative piece of legislation. It seeks to criminalise not only homosexual acts but also any advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights.
The penalty? Up to five years in prison. This is not, as some Western commentators would have it, an outlier in African politics.
Similar laws exist in Uganda, Kenya, and Nigeria. They are popular, reflecting the views of a majority of Ghanaians who, according to polling, hold traditional views on sexuality. The British response, while predictable, is strategically obtuse.
The Foreign Office’s statement, which expressed ‘grave concern’ and hinted at potential aid cuts, is a textbook example of neoliberal imperialism. It assumes that Western values are universal and that economic pressure is the proper tool to enforce them. This is the same logic that drove the ‘civilising missions’ of the 19th century.
The irony is so thick one could cut it with a machete. Yet, one must also consider the wider context. The Commonwealth, that curious club of former colonial possessions, is fracturing.
The debate over LGBTQ+ rights is merely the latest fissure. Brexit Britain, desperate for new trade deals, cannot afford to alienate its former colonies. But it also cannot abandon its self-image as a beacon of liberal values.
The result is a confused and contradictory foreign policy. Ghana, for its part, is asserting its sovereignty. President Nana Akufo-Addo has not yet signed the bill into law, citing the need for judicial review.
This is a wise move. It allows the storm to pass while maintaining plausible deniability. But if he signs it, the rift with the West will widen.
Ghana may find itself drifting towards China, which has no qualms about supporting authoritarian regimes regardless of their social policies. The deeper question, however, is one of historical cycles. Every empire, from Rome to Britain, has eventually collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.
The Commonwealth, as a post-imperial project, is now facing its own. The tension between universal human rights and national sovereignty is the defining political struggle of our age. It is the same tension that tore apart the Balkans, fuelled the Arab Spring, and now threatens the fragile unity of the Commonwealth.
Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ+ bill is not just a piece of legislation. It is a symbol. It represents the refusal of post-colonial states to be dictated to by their former masters.
It also represents a deep-seated social conservatism that the liberal West finds increasingly difficult to stomach. The British Foreign Office’s condemnation may be well-intentioned. But it is also a reminder that the ghosts of empire still haunt us.
And they are not easily exorcised.
