Why does Madagascar struggle to break free from the cycle of political crises? This question was at the heart of the debate conference "Recurring Political Crises in Madagascar," held on August 7 at the Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences of the University of Antananarivo.
The meeting brought together political scientist Christiane Rafidinarivo, researcher-lecturer Faneva Ratsimba Rajaona, and historian Richard Ranarivony to examine the causes and mechanisms behind this repetition.
Professor Christiane Rafidinarivo, a doctorate holder in political science, first placed the question of crises within a structural perspective. The discussions highlighted their historical recurrence, with a periodicity estimated at approximately ten to twelve years, which tends to shorten. Behind this repetition lie several vulnerabilities: persistent poverty, economic difficulties, inequalities, weak governance, and institutional dysfunctions.
This approach goes beyond simple chronology of crises. The challenge is understanding why exits from crises do not always produce sufficiently profound transformations to prevent their return.
This question also refers to the role of institutions and political actors. Faneva Ratsimba Rajaona intervened as a discussant. The exchanges emphasized the importance of institutions in managing political tensions. When mechanisms for dialogue, arbitration, and checks and balances function poorly, power dynamics can shift to the streets. Mobilization then becomes a means of political pressure.
However, institutions are not the only elements to consider. "There is no crisis without actors," was recalled during the discussions. Popular discontent can drive mobilization but can also be directed or instrumentalized by different actors according to their political interests.
Historian and Vice-President of the University of Antananarivo, Richard Ranarivony moderated the meeting. His intervention allowed different dimensions of reflection to be connected and placed the question of crises within a broader perspective.
The historical approach notably prevents viewing each crisis as an isolated phenomenon. Periods of rupture can be observed through their continuities, repetitions, and the changes they produce, or fail to produce, in society and institutions.
Beyond different approaches, one conclusion emerges: political crisis cannot be separated from the country's social, economic, and institutional vulnerabilities. An economic difficulty or social demand can transform into political mobilization, leading to broader confrontation when institutional mechanisms can no longer channel tensions.
The challenge is therefore to break the cycle of crisis, rupture, and reconstruction without sufficiently profound transformation. Strengthening institutions, political dialogue, citizen participation, and consolidation of the rule of law appear as paths to break this logic.
Organized by Master's 2 students in Mediation and Cultural Management of the French and Francophone Studies program, the conference sought to make the university a space for reflection on the country's major political questions.