Blog

Institutionalization of Hatred: Homophobia in Authoritarian Regimes

შოთა ფუტკარაძე
chathamhouse.org
The Aprili Media blog section is dedicated to various individuals and diverse viewpoints. These blogs are not an editorial category and reflect the personal opinions of the authors. The positions expressed by the authors may not necessarily represent the stance of Aprili Media.

Author: Leila Chkhetiani

Modern authoritarian regimes, in addition to exploiting democratic institutions, are characterized by intolerant and non-pluralistic policies, often targeting minorities. Thus, homophobia has become a hallmark of contemporary authoritarianism. Whether it is Putin’s Russia, Erdoğan’s Turkey, the ruling Fidesz party in Hungary, or Poland’s Law and Justice party, which has declared itself free from LGBTQ+ “ideology”.

In Georgia, the democratic backsliding of the ruling party has been accompanied by the spread of homophobic propaganda and the implementation of discriminatory policies against minorities. The Chinese government has banned the appearance of people with feminine and stereotypically “non-masculine” habits on television to curb “pernicious” and “abnormal” propaganda. The Hungarian parliament has passed an anti-“gay propaganda” and anti-pedophilia law that prohibits providing information on sexual orientation and gender identity to minors. China and Hungary were inspired by Russia’s anti-queer law passed in 2013. However, anti-LGBTQ+ policies have become a global phenomenon; for instance, in 2023, Uganda passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, which criminalizes identifying with or engaging in activities related to the LGBTQ+ community, with penalties including the death sentence in extreme cases.

Despite the varying intensity of discriminatory policies and the institutionalization of homophobic policies across states, it is interesting to explore why the LGBTQ+ community becomes a target for authoritarian regimes and anti-democratic forces.

Political homophobia is a deliberate and systematic strategy employed by political actors, based on national identity, culture, religion, and political hegemony. In recent decades, authoritarian populist regimes have frequently resorted to homophobic campaigns — portraying queerness as a “deviation” and the protection of LGBTQ+ rights as the antithesis of family values.

According to Norris and Inglehart, authoritarianism is based on three core values:

  1. The primacy of security;
  2. Conformity to the majority and protection of their traditions;
  3. Obedience to a strong and autocratic leader.

Modern authoritarian regimes are also characterized by populism, claiming that real power lies with the people and not the “immoral” elites, thereby speaking on behalf of the populace.

The primacy of security often conflicts with democracy. Authoritarian regimes need a constant threat and a so-called culture of fear that endangers the well-being of the majority and justifies the fight against an enemy image. Frequently, representatives of different identities, social, or political groups become scapegoats of the regime. For example, in authoritarian populism, migrants or the LGBTQ+ community are depicted as threats to the majority’s well-being and identity. Hence, authoritarians begin implementing discriminatory policies, and homophobia often becomes a political tool to justify violence against the enemy image.

The rejection of the LGBTQ+ community is based on the protection of traditions and the preservation of identity. Authoritarian populist leaders claim to speak on behalf of the people and execute the popular will, presenting themselves as defenders of the heterosexual family institution, children, and religious, cultural, and moral values.

The fight for queer community rights is a relatively new process compared to other minority struggles. The emancipation of queers remains unacceptable to certain segments of society, and some LGBTQ+ rights are still restricted even in liberal democracies (for example, same-sex marriage was banned in the United States until 2015, and transgender rights remain challenging in Western democracies). The procedures for adoption by queer couples, recognition of gender identity, marriage equality, and similar issues are still stigmatized in many countries, especially in hybrid and authoritarian regimes.

Authoritarian leaders appeal to societal sentiments regarding the LGBTQ+ community, reinforcing existing stereotypes and prejudices about them, and gain political benefits by restricting their rights.

The basis for the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community and the intolerant treatment they face is often rooted in religion. For a certain part of society, religion and the existence of the LGBTQ+ community are in conflict. Authoritarian regimes often align themselves with religious institutions and restrict minority rights to gain the favor of the religious populace. For instance, Putin’s regime justified anti-queer laws under the guise of protecting Orthodox Church traditions. In Italy, right-wing populist parties, in collaboration with the Vatican, obstructed the passage of laws aimed at curbing hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community.

Protecting the rights of minorities, including the LGBTQ+ community, is a fundamental value of liberal democracy. For this reason, authoritarian regimes demonize the LGBTQ+ community to make liberalism appear less attractive. They portray the emancipation of minorities by liberalism as a “totalitarian” project that fights against the church.

Authoritarianism upholds national supremacy and fights against pluralism and diversity. Authoritarian leaders believe that acceptance of queer identities hinders national revival. Moreover, protecting minority rights is associated with Western democracies, the European Union, and the United States. Authoritarian states often attribute support for the LGBTQ+ community to Western neocolonialism, viewing local LGBTQ+ rights organizations as agents of the Western world and Trojan horses threatening national sovereignty. This approach is reflected in the recent rhetoric of “Georgian Dream,” where representatives of the ruling party accuse the West and local civil organizations of spreading LGBTQ+ “propaganda” and violating Georgia’s sovereignty.

The low birth rates in Western industrial democracies provide additional arguments for authoritarian leaders to claim that gender and sexual emancipation contribute to the breakdown of the family and traditions.

The mobilization against the LGBTQ+ community by authoritarian regimes and anti-democratic forces also serves to elevate their international status. Smaller or politically declining states attempt to enhance their international standing by acquiring “moral superiority.” An example of this is Russia, which, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the loss of global influence, seeks to reclaim its geopolitical status through the idea of protecting Orthodox Christianity. In Georgia, the current narratives of “Georgian Dream”—accusing the democratic European Union of moral decadence and presenting themselves as defenders of “homeland, language, and faith”—are attempts to elevate their global position.

Authoritarian leaders portray themselves as protectors of traditions and values by oppressing the LGBTQ+ community, aiming to gain popular support and political legitimacy by defending the “purity” of the nation. Furthermore, emphasizing the LGBTQ+ community serves as a distraction from economic and political crises that have become problematic for authoritarian regimes. According to anthropologist Gayle Rubin, “Disputes over sexual behavior often displace social anxieties and mitigate their attendant emotional intensity. Consequently, sexuality is accorded particular reverence during times of great social tension.”

Authoritarian leaders leverage this dynamic to solidify their power, deflecting attention from underlying issues by focusing on the LGBTQ+ community as a scapegoat. By positioning themselves as moral guardians, they manipulate public sentiment to reinforce their control and divert criticism away from their governance failures.

Furthermore, anti-democratic forces use political homophobia and Manichaeism to fuel polarization in society, pitting regime-loyal defenders of tradition against supporters of the LGBTQ+ community, who are labeled as “degenerate.” This polarization and societal destabilization not only hinder the development of democracy but also serve to discredit political opponents. Russia frequently refers to the European Union as “Gayropa,” while “Georgian Dream” accuses the critical NGO sector of spreading “LGBT propaganda.”

The instrumentalization of homophobia helps authoritarian regimes maintain power and gain political benefits. This is why political homophobia becomes particularly relevant during election periods. This explains the ruling party’s initiation of anti-LGBTQ+ “propaganda” laws.

By stoking divisions and framing the LGBTQ+ community as a threat, authoritarian leaders create a convenient scapegoat to distract from governance issues and consolidate their power. These tactics are designed to rally their base by appealing to traditional values and fears, effectively diverting attention from other significant problems and ensuring their hold on power remains unchallenged.

Literature:

TAGGED: