Since the 1920s, nationalism has remained particularly vibrant in northern Madagascar, contrary to the long-held notion that this region was fundamentally hostile to migrants from the central Highlands. Anticolonialism took shape well before World War II, driven notably by migrant workers, often from the Highlands, who spread their social and political demands. The influence of Jean Ralaimongo proved decisive here. It was so significant that the colonial administration, concerned about this ideological contagion, adopted openly ethnicist discourse. Thus, during his visit to Bobasakoa on November 7, 1930, regional chief Laporte urged the local population to reject the settlement of "Hova, Betsileo, Betsimisaraka and even Creoles," illustrating a classic colonial strategy of instrumentalizing ethnic divisions to neutralize emerging political solidarities.

The 1920s marked a period of continuous contestation of colonial order, amplified by Ralaimongo's repeated interventions in Diégo-Suarez in 1923 and 1929. Malagasy nationalism found new language there, focused on denouncing colonial abuses, defending planters and peasants, and especially the sensitive issue of land dispossession in rural areas—a unifying theme if ever there was one. Simultaneously, and therein lies the entire ambiguity of Antsiranana's case, the city remained a firmly rooted Francophile center. Occupied by France as early as December 1885, it housed a strategic naval base, making the region a colonial outpost well before Madagascar's official annexation. This colonial precedence weighed heavily on local political representations. Members of PADESM, a party founded in July 1946 and particularly influential in the region, unabashedly claimed their attachment to France, elevated to the rank of "mother country." The ampanjaka and certain local notables, nourished by the political aftermath of the 19th century, saw in France not an oppressor but a liberator capable of preserving them from what they perceived as Merina hegemony: a selective reading of history, but politically effective.

These social groups, benefiting from various advantages granted by the colonial system, naturally became pillars of loyalism. The city of Diégo-Suarez thus asserted itself as the stronghold of these colonial order supporters: ampanjaka, Réunion colonists, and local notables exercised significant influence over the population, contributing to maintaining displayed loyalty to France. The tension between nationalists and pro-colonials became structural, almost constitutive of the city's political identity, now established as a new center of French authority, more connected to the metropole than to local traditional authorities. During sixty-four years of colonization, forms of struggle evolved according to political circumstances. Armed insurrections of the early period were succeeded, from the late 1920s onward, by more "civilized" strategies—to use colonial vocabulary—carried by elites: petitions, political demands, organized parties. From VVS to Jean Ralaimongo, then to MDRM, contestation changed face without ever renouncing its fundamental objective.

Finally, in the aftermath of World War II, a weakened France, under international and notably UN pressure, found itself forced to soften its colonial policy. Aware of this new fragility, Malagasy nationalists accelerated the emancipation process, convinced—not without pragmatism—that history, for once, leaned in their favor. Malagasy nationalists had manifested, in one way or another, their aspiration for independence since the beginning of the colonial period. But the expression of these aspirations took new forms according to periods and regions. If, at the end of the 19th century, demands were more brutal and severe, the 20th century was a period during which Malagasy elites changed their strategy: "peaceful demands," or rather collaboration with colonizers? A question posed repeatedly by perceptive students during debate conferences in universities. Indeed, the context of World War II favored the emergence of a new category of Malagasy elites. Their aspiration to exercise this right was inscribed in a logic of negotiation with the colonizer. Their objective was to obtain the power to manage their country's affairs through progressive reforms of the colonial system.