Welcome, Saturday friend. For its fifth consultation, our practice today examines an indestructible patient, contagious for centuries, and stubbornly refusing any cure: the unenlightened dictator. To begin and understand what we're discussing, let's turn to relevant Larousse definitions. Dictator: An authoritarian person who imposes their viewpoint and way of life on others. To be enlightened: To have knowledge and discernment. An unenlightened mind is therefore a mind guided by the light of Jirama power cuts. This doesn't prevent it from being illuminated, even in darkness. A question for champions, and we're not talking about Andry Rajoelina: What truly matters to citizens in their daily lives? Is it economic well-being: being able to eat, get healthcare, dress, educate children, have decent work? Or is it political well-being: being able to speak freely, have access to fair elections? Such questions animate those preparing to lick bear-skin boots or kung-fu espadrilles. There are indeed some examples of dictatorships that developed their countries, at the expense of political rights and civil liberties. The most famous examples often cited are probably Lee Kuan Yew's regime in Singapore or successive authoritarian regimes in Taiwan. However, they are not alone. This is why in Madagascar, many leaders have been inspired by the idea of enlightened dictatorship, but have always been unable to go beyond the first word. One might think that, unlike unenlightened dictator, enlightened dictator is a priori an oxymoron, an association of two contradictory words, like a virgin prostitute or an honest politician. We ultimately got the versions from Behoririka shops, unenlightened dictatorships, which present all the flaws of jadona without offering the advantages of fandrosoana. They produce, however, a perverse and inevitable effect: unjustified enrichment of the ruling clan, protected by a twisted rule of law where law is used as a political tool against opponents. The unenlightened dictator will therefore seek to avoid becoming a victim of what they were guilty of. If they benefited from military faction support to overthrow the previous leader, they will appease the soldiers with advantages and promotions. If they exploited social networks to access power without going through the ballot box, they know the risks. Experience is worth science: they will therefore strive to place these same networks under control. In the name of the law. Let us recall, however, that legality is not justice. At some point in history and in various places on the planet, apartheid was legal, as was colonialism, slavery, or certain genocides. "In the name of the law" is therefore certainly not an infallible and systematically respectable principle. Sometimes, it's just an injunction to invoke or fabricate wicked laws, Machiavellian searches, imaginary accusations of threats to state security, all to preserve the mental serenity of the leader. Sometimes, behind the noble principle of fighting cybercrime hide cybercriminals heading networks of fake accounts. But in politics, the criminal is just the one on the wrong side of the fence. When you're on the "right side," the objective is to help obtain silence on sensitive subjects. The flourishing automobile heritage. The miraculous real estate heritage. The plump bank accounts, preferably abroad. Fake diplomas concealed by complaisance diplomas. When they were opponents, many insulted those in power. Once they reach power, insulting them becomes lèse-majesté. The insolent success of the unenlightened dictator in personal enrichment inspires other aspiring dictators. From the 1972 crisis to that of 2025, all opponents have claimed to want change, but they often only want to change one thing: the identity of clan members profiting from the system. Power and the "S" that goes with it. "S" for sosy, in case twisted minds imagine something else. Although... When we hear certain stories of morals within the political class, it's not a mpiandry in power we would need, but an exorcist. In fishmongers, each delivery renews the crabs in the basket, but crabs remain crabs. They have the same behavior, pinch those who threaten them, and give off the same smell. The unenlightened dictator who replaces an unenlightened dictator will therefore be equally incompetent, equally arrogant, and equally undemocratic. A simple reason for this: if the judicial system is under orders and Parliament at attention...