In November of 2024, following two years of uncontested rule, the provisional government in Mali moved to enshrine anti-LGBTQ legislation into the nation’s penal code.

It was the first time in the country’s history that sanctions for gay rights had been in force, and it passed with resounding success: the National Transitional Council voted 132-1 to move the legislation on to be approved by the nation’s military leaders, the final step before the bill enters effect. 

The bill itself is indicative of a long trend of democratic erosion in the country, and a window into how, after degrading democracy for years, a small group of military leaders was able to exert their will to curtail civil liberties for thousands of Malians. 

The Junta’s Government 

To understand the passage of the bill it’s important to start in 2020, when a second coup led to the dissolution of the elected legislature in favor of a transitional council appointed by the junta. Alleging vote buying, intimidation, and COVID-19 restrictions, military leaders utilized the guise of protection of democracy to justify the need for the transitional government, a strategy for erosion that Varol refers to as bolstering legitimacy. 

In the construction of the new legislature, the junta continued to cement its power through the erosion of democracy. National Transitional Council seats were allocated to give a majority of power to security forces and the majority party while giving a small set of seats to the minority.  

This successfully removed two key institutional checks: first, the move effectively eliminated political competition by relegating them to a small sphere where they could interact but not threaten the actions of the military government. Secondly, the elimination successfully removed a key institutional check, allowing the executive, which is also controlled by the military, to work in tandem with a controlled legislature. 

The consolidation of power extended to the judiciary as well. In 2020, utilizing the nation’s frustration with political gridlock, the Constitutional Court was dissolved and reformulated, with the executive branch, legislative branch, and a judicial council each appointing three seats. The process was criticized, however, because an executive ally played a major role in judge selection, essentially handing power over to the executive; a branch once more controlled by the junta. 

In the course of just a year, the military consolidated power over each of the three key branches of government, allowing for almost complete power in governance. Over the next three years, they went on to use this power, shaping politics in a manner that was favorable to their policies. Nowhere was this seen more clearly in the passage of the country’s new constitution in 2023. 

The New Constitution 

Constitutional reform is a key moment of democratic erosion in many countries, allowing for the ruling party to enshrine their power further in a key foundational document instead of just through legislation. When the military junta chose to take this step they made many alterations, some of which were key in paving the way for the recent anti-LGBT bill. 

The first of these changes allowed the junta to once again delay elections for president, ensuring that there would be a continuing stranglehold on power for the military leaders. This also allowed them to delay legislative elections. 

Aside from political concerns, the constitution was also a chance for the majority to realize populist support for social regulations previously unseen in the country’s government: namely, a clause of the constitution limiting marriage to a union between only a man and a woman. 

Homophobia in Mali is widespread. In a 2007 PEW survey of the nation, almost 98% rejected homosexuality, a number which remains high. One supporter, Aïchata Maïga, said the provision was what made the new constitution appealing: “What I liked most about this constitution is the article that clearly defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. So a woman can’t marry a woman, and a man can’t marry a man.” 

By utilizing a populist narrative, emphasizing the fact that the true people of Mali deeply wished for the rejection of gay marriage, the government did two things: first they laid the groundwork for future changes, and second, they solidified their claim to rule. As political scientist Jan-Werner Müller notes, populists seek to moralize their governance, creating a narrative that they are the “only morally legitimate representatives of the people.” 

This, however, was just the groundwork for the imposition of the bill itself. With that groundwork well understood, it’s now time to look at the passage of the legislation itself, and how all the previous erosion culminated in its passage. 

The Anti-LGBTQ Bill 

Riding the wave of the previous marriage restrictions which were enforced following the ratification of the new constitution, the junta was able to push legislation forward in November which further restricted gay rights within the country and criminalized same-sex acts. 

The bill originated in the National Transitional Council, where the junta maintains heavy control, and passed with almost unanimous support. This went by without much resistance, even considering the lack of previous restrictions in the country’s history. It is expected to then go on to the military leaders of the country, where it can be signed into law. 

While both an eroded executive and legislature can be clearly seen as pivotal in the passage of the legislation, a somewhat more subtle version of democratic erosion was also key: the justification by the judiciary. Like in other democracies, the Malian constitutional court retains the power to review and legitimize legislation. Its leader, Justice and Human Rights Minister Mamadou Kassogue, who also has ties to the junta, did just that on passage of the bill, writing that from now on “there are provisions in our laws that prohibit homosexuality in Mali.”  

Kassogue also reiterated the moralization of the issue, adding: “We will not accept our customs and values being violated by people from elsewhere. This text will be applied, God willing.” 

This bill perfectly demonstrates the state of eroded democracy in Mali. It was passed by a government that has been firmly under the thumb of a military junta, using democracy as a weapon to exert its power over the people of the nation as a whole. Their control over the three branches, as well as their invocation of populist sentiments, allowed them to take steps formerly unheard of in the nation. 

Now, citizens of that nation will pay the price.