For several weeks, public debate in Madagascar has been inflamed over the future form of the State. Between false legal leads and political outbidding, this agitation misleads public opinion while reinforcing certain actors in outdated claims. But a fundamental question remains: is this debate even timely? How can one decently deliberate on the future of the Republic's institutions when no constitutional text has yet been drafted?

Until now, the jurisprudence of the High Constitutional Court (HCC) has been crystal clear: we remain under the current Constitution, and constitutional bodies must continue their missions. Yet a political faction loudly demands the dissolution of these same institutions. One question imposes itself: on what legal order do such demands rest, if not on a void?

Let us recall the facts. Decision No. 10 of the Court explicitly entrusted the military authorities with organizing the presidential election within 60 days—and nothing else. This prerogative rests exclusively with the President of the Refoundation of the Republic of Madagascar (PRRM). If the latter opened the way to political dialogue, it was for the sake of democratic consensus, not legal obligation. The final word is his. Therefore, claiming to organize a referendum before the presidential election amounts to political contortion and outright denial of the Court's decisions.

But the most serious issue lies in the methodical heresy being imposed on the country: wanting to reform electoral governance before adopting a Constitution. The incoherence boils down to a legal syllogism of disarming simplicity:

• Major premise: In law, the Constitution is the supreme norm. It defines the nature of the State, the political system, and electoral principles. Any law or electoral code merely flows from this edifice.
• Minor premise: Yet reforming the electoral code today amounts to writing the instruction manual for a machine whose structure does not yet exist.
• Conclusion: Any legislative reform undertaken before the promulgation of the new fundamental law is legally void and politically irresponsible.

How can one claim to set the rules of electoral play without knowing whether Madagascar will be a parliamentary, presidential, or federal republic? Drafting electoral law before adopting a Constitution is not merely an anomaly: it is the perfect illustration of a snake biting its own tail.

It is time to recover institutional rigor. Let us not allow outdated political calculations to trample the logic of law: the Nation's future demands building foundations before laying the roof.