I am writing this article to contribute to the public discourse on the subject matter before our legislature. As a citizen and not a spectator of Ghana as the President of the Republic enjoined us to be. Public policy either domestic and foreign distributes both negative and positive outcomes simultaneously.

It is anchored on this rationale that I am dropping this write-up. "Where you sit determines where you stand in policy making". It  was and it is still interesting reading the gamut of arguments by advocates for and against the anti-LGBTQI+ Bill before our parliament. Those in support of bill are making both religious and legal propositions against homosexuality in our country. They're the majority of Ghanaians against the practice in our country.

One cannot ignore the avalanche of their support for the bill within the prisms of domestic and foreign policies formulations and implementations. In policy making, the citizenry must have legitimacy (support) for any policy making and implementations. They're those who are going to face the negative and positive ramifications of any public policy making and implementation.

There is the need for 'domestic connection' (support) in foreign policy making and implementation. Both liberalism and realism perspectives in IR recognised this point. On the other hand, the advocates against the bill are also making their arguments using legal and modicum of religiosity. That the bill infringes upon the 'fundamental human rights' of the gays and lesbians in our country.

That the bill is 'extreme', creating 'hate' against those who engage in the acts. That it will let our country lose foreign aid; MPs will face travel bans by the international community especially the West etc.

Consequently, it's instructive to note that not all the Western world have legalised homosexuality in their countries. Hungary and Poland in the European Union have passed bills against homosexuality and are in loggerheads with the Union. Thus Ghana will not be the first country to pass a bill/law against those acts.

The Myth of 'Fundamental Human Rights' within the West and the Global South:
The venerable Indian politician, diplomat and scholar Shashi Tharoor dissect the Western conception of 'universality' of human rights against the global south conception.

In his article 'Are Human Rights Universal? 1999/2000', he stated among others that the Western conception of human rights are predicated on the individual whilst the developing world conception is grounded on 'Confucian or Vedic traditions'.

The West led by the US  after the end of the Cold War always want to foist their worldview or 'values' via overt and covert means on the parts of the world within Liberal International Order; or Liberal Interventionism.

My position:

The Liberal International Order has both negative and positive outcomes since the end of the Cold War. Homosexuality is one of them and it's time the West realise that; and carrot and stick diplomacy without taking into account the values, norms and traditions of other countries will yield pyrrhic victory.
World is now moving towards multipolarity notwithstanding the US's unipolarity in global affairs.

We have our religious values, norms and beliefs and no amount of intimidation and hostile diplomacy will let us accept homosexuality in our country. Parliament must earnestly pass the bill and the President must also assent his signature after the parliamentary passage.