The modern world has witnessed a significant shift in social norms regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. While some countries have made progress towards legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing transgender individuals to change their names and genders on official documents, others still view these practices as taboo. One factor that contributes to this disparity is how political parties instrumentalize LGBTQ+ rights for ideological gain. This means they exploit the issue of LGBTQ+ rights for political purposes without genuine concern for those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex. The main reason for such behavior is to attract votes from people who hold conservative beliefs about sexuality and gender. Political parties leverage LGBTQ+ rights in their campaign platforms and speeches to gain support from voters while avoiding taking concrete actions that protect the rights of members of the community. As a result, the LGBTQ+ population faces discrimination and exclusion even in countries where there are laws against it. Political leaders often do not follow through on promises to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals. They may even oppose proposed legislation that would enhance their safety and well-being. This essay will discuss how political parties use LGBTQ+ rights for ideological gain rather than ethical commitment, examining specific examples from different parts of the globe.
In the United States, politicians use LGBTQ+ rights to appeal to conservative voters.
Former President Trump ran his 2016 presidential campaign with an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda, promising to revoke Obama's order mandating transgender students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. During his presidency, he also banned transgender soldiers from serving openly in the military, despite opposition from major military groups.
His administration did little to address issues affecting the LGBTQ+ population, such as healthcare accessibility and job discrimination. Politicians have used similar tactics in other Western nations, including Australia and Canada. In Australia, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott opposed same-sex marriage, despite its legalization by parliamentarians. He claimed this was because he wanted to respect the views of traditionalists. Similarly, Canadian politicians initially opposed same-sex marriage but later changed course after facing criticism. Both cases demonstrate how politicians use LGBTQ+ rights as a tool to win elections while ignoring their impact on real people.
In Asia, political parties instrumentalize LGBTQ+ rights for ideological gain by exploiting cultural beliefs about sexuality. Some countries like India still criminalize homosexuality, citing religious or cultural values that condemn same-sex relationships. This has led to persecution and violence against the LGBTQ+ community, even though the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sex in 2018. In China, many politicians support the current ban on same-sex marriage, claiming it is necessary to protect traditional family values. They argue that legally recognizing same-sex unions would erode the fabric of society. In Africa, some leaders deny that LGBTQ+ individuals exist or claim they are not human beings. These statements create an environment where LGBTQ+ people are vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, and abuse.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed a bill in 2014 imposing life sentences for gay sex offenses, even though no one had ever been convicted under it. The law was overturned following international pressure but illustrates how politics can harm marginalized groups.
Political parties' instrumentalization of LGBTQ+ rights extends beyond campaign platforms and speeches. Leaders often fail to follow through on promises once elected, undermining efforts to enhance the lives of members of the community.
Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro publicly opposed abortion and LGBTQ+ rights during his election campaign but then backtracked after winning the presidency. His administration implemented policies limiting access to healthcare and education for transgender individuals while promoting conservative views about gender identity. Similarly, Turkish President Erdogan initially supported LGBTQ+ rights before shifting towards a more conservative stance as he sought reelection. He has passed laws restricting media coverage of Pride marches and curbing academic research on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Political parties use LGBTQ+ rights for ideological gain rather than ethical commitment by exploiting cultural beliefs about sexuality and gender. They leverage these issues in their campaigns to attract votes from conservatives while ignoring the consequences for real people. Politicians also fail to implement promised legislation or programs that could improve the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals. This approach creates an environment where members of this group face discrimination, exclusion, and violence. It is crucial for politicians to prioritize ethics over ideology when discussing LGBTQ+ rights to ensure meaningful change.
How do political parties instrumentalize LGBT rights for ideological gain rather than ethical commitment?
The political party's stance on LGBT rights can be seen as a way of appealing to certain sections of society that support their policies, which may not always align with genuine commitment to improving the lives of the community. By taking a strong position on an issue like LGBT rights, the political party can present itself as being progressive and inclusive, even if its actions do not necessarily match up to these beliefs.