Category Archives: Madagascar

Madagascar

Madagascar – Update

This is just a brief update about the situation in Madagascar. Recall that the former mayor of Antananarivo, Andry Rajoelina, had proclaimed himself president of the so-called ‘High Council of Transition’, that he had named a ‘prime minister’, Monja Roindefo, and that subsequently he named a ministerial team. The ‘ministers’ tried to occupy the ‘regular’ ministerial buildings at certain points last week, but without great success. Both Rajoelina and the actual president, Marc Ravalomanana, held rallies to demonstrate their support. Rajoelina was calling for nothing less than Ravalomanana’s resignation. Ravalomanana called upon the African Union to intervene on the basis of the logic that they would have to support the legally constituted president.

Anyway, both Ravalomanana and Rajoelina have now met on three occasions, although each meeting seems to have lasted only one hour according to frallafrica.com. The churches are facilitating the dialogue between the two parties.

From reading the newspapers, there is at least some sense that an agreement between the two parties is being discussed. This seems to be centred on some sort of power-sharing arrangement. According to Madagascar Tribune, the question of the prime minister and senior ministers is one of the main issues at stake in the negotiations. Also, they report that the idea of a transitional authority has taken root. This has happened before in Madagascar – in 1991, most notably, during the transition to democracy. L’Express de Madagascar suggests that the idea of a National Convention is also taking hold.

Although Rajoelina has clearly shown that he has a lot of support in the capital and while he is clearly impatient for change (he is nicknamed TGV), there is the question of whether the democratically elected president will accept to share power.

Madagascar – Crisis deepens

The events in Madagascar have taken a tragic turn. L’Express de Madagascar reports that on Saturday 7 February, there was a demonstration by supporters of the opposition to President Ravalomanana. The crowd seemed to try to move on the presidential palace. The guards at the palace opened fire and at least 28 people were killed and over 200 injured.

At the meeting before the events on Saturday, the opposition leader and self-proclaimed head of the executive, Andry Rajoelina, had proclaimed himself president of the ‘High Council of Transition’. He also named a ‘prime minister’, Monja Roindefo, at the meeting. Fr.allafrica.com suggests that the crowd may have been encouraged to march on the presidential palace.

On Monday 9 February, the Defence Minister resigned, thereby distancing the administration from the events.

Madagascar – Rajoelina replaced

The crisis in Madagascar has taken another twist.

Andry Rajoelina, who had declared himself head of the executive and who was calling for the destitution of the President Ravalomanana, has been replaced as mayor of Antananarivo. The decision was made by the Minister of the Interior, who is loyal to the president of course. A special administrator has been appointed to replace Rajoelina.

However, in turn, Rajoelina appointed one of the assistant mayors as his successor. According to l’Express de Madagascar, Rajoelina justified his decision by implying that his other duties – i.e. his self-proclaimed position as head of the executive – required him to step down.

Therefore, the capital now has two ‘mayors’ and the country two ‘presidents’!

Unsurprisingly, Rajoelina failed in his bid to have the High Constitutional Court consider his call for the destitution of President Ravalomanana. The Court is filled with pro-government supporters. In addition, l’Express de Madagascar reports that High Court of Justice, which is the institution that is meant to be responsible for dealing with charges against political leaders according to the 1992 constitution, has never been established.

Madagascar – Once again two presidents!

Madagascar seems to be making a habit of having two presidents.

Following the 2001 presidential election, the outgoing president Didier Ratsiraka refused to accept the victory of Marc Ravalomanana. There were, literally, two people who proclaimed themselves president. At the start the international community was split between the two sides and official dignitaries paid a visit to both parties. However, by July the international community had turned against him and Ratsiraka’s forces were not powerful enough to contest power any more – Ravalomanana having been officially sworn in twice (like Obama!), once in February and then again in May. In July Ratsiraka fled the country and is still in exile.

As reported, last week there were big anti-government protests led by the mayor of the capital Antananarivo, Andry Rajoelina. (He was elected mayor in December 2007, beating the president’s candidate by a large majority). Anyway, at another big anti-government demonstration last Saturday Rajoelina pronounced himself responsible for the executive branch of government. L’Express de Madagascar reports him as saying “Until the formation of a transition government, I will give orders concerning the management of national affairs and the ministries”.

Obviously, President Ravalomanana has retorted by saying that he is still in charge and that his presidency is legitimate. (He was re-elected in December 2006). However, it is noted that he has announced that the Prime Minister will attend the African Union summit. This is unusual. Also, there are reports that Rajoelina has been contacting members of the military. He already has the support of a chunk of the opposition. There are plans for a motion in parliament for the destitution of President Ravalomanana. Today he has announced that he is doing the same before the High Constitutional Court.

Recall that the proximate source of the protests was President Ravalomanana’s reaction to a television broadcast by Didier Ratsiraka on a station owned by Rajoelina. This perhaps adds some background to what might be called the ‘two presidencies’ stance taken by Rajoelina on Saturday.

Madagascar – Protests against the president

There has been serious protesting in Antananarivo. Jeuneafrique reports that 34 people have died since Monday.

The protests have occurred between supporters of the president, Marc Ravalomanana, and the opposition figure and mayor of Antananarivo, Andry Rajoelina. The conflict seems to have been sparked by an interview with former president, Didier Ratsiraka, who remains an opponent of President Ravalomanana. The interview was broadcast on the private television channel, Viva, which is owned by the mayor. After the interview, the station was shut down by the government. Supporters of Rajoelina then took to the streets. Allafrica reports that Rajoelina has mobilised up to 40,000 people in the capital against the president. On Tuesday Rajoelina declared a curfew in the capital. The Madagascar Tribune reports that regional leaders have begun to extend the curfew across the island.

There were reports that President Ravalomanana and Rajoelina had agreed to meet to discuss the situation on Wednesday. However, Midi Madagasikara reports that no such meeting took place. Rajoelina issued a number of preconditions to the meeting and, apparently, the president refused to accept them. Rajoelina continues to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and the president is relying on the law and order forces to calm the situation. This does not sound like a good combination of events.

Madagascar – Try measuring this presidential power

This story dates back to July, but it’s worth repeating.

Apparently, the president of Madagascar, Marc Ravalomanana, who is also apparently very superstitious, expelled the French ambassador, Gildas Le Lidec, after only six months into his posting, because he feared that Ambassador Le Lidec was the source of bad luck.

Ambassador Le Lidec was posted in the Democratic Republic of Congo in October 2000 when President Laurent-Désiré Kabila was murdered, and he was posted in Cote d’Ivoire from 2002 to 2005, during the rebellion against Laurent Gbagbo.

The story goes that President Ravalomanana believed that Ambassador Le Lidec had the evil eye. He persistently refused to meet him after his appointment in January 2008 and the ambassador left his post after only six months in office.

There are, of course, other interpretations of events, notably Madagascar’s desire to demonstrate its independence from France. Nonetheless, as these stories go, it’s quite an unusual one.

‘Difficult’ cases – Madagascar 1975

This is series of posts that identifies countries that almost comply with the definition of semi-presidentialism that is used in this blog, but which fail to do so on the basis of a certain, sometimes unusual provision, or where the date when semi-presidentialism started can be contested.

In 1992 Madagascar adopted a constitution that was clearly semi-presidential. The president is directly elected. The government is responsible to the National Assembly (Arts. 61-3 and 94). In 1992 Madagascar had a premier-presidential form of semi-presidentialism. However, the constitution was amended in 1998 resulting in a president-parliamentary form of semi-presidentialism (viz. Art. 53 and the addition of the phrase “… pour toute cause déterminante”).

In 1975 Madagascar adopted a constitution that was on the cusp of semi-presidentialism. The constitution had elements of a party/socialist constitution. So, for example, Art. 46 stated that the executive consisted of the president, government and the Supreme Council of the Revolution. However, in contrast to constitutions in, say, Congo-Kinshasa during this period, the party/socialist element of the constitution was not overwhelming, even if political life was organised on the basis of a one-party regime at the time.

In the 1975 constitution, Art. 47 stated that the president was directly elected. Arts. 60 and 61 made reference to both the government and the prime minister, who was responsible to the president, as head of government.

The reason why Madagascar is on the cusp of semi-presidentialism is because of the provisions for government responsibility to the legislature. Art. 78 stated that if the prime minister wished to make adjustments to his political programme and the National Assembly disagreed with the proposed changes, then the prime minister could call for a vote of confidence. If a two-thirds majority of the total number of National Assembly members voted against the confidence motion, then the government had to resign.

This would seem to suggest that the government is responsible to the legislature. However, there are two complications. Firstly, the two-thirds majority requirement is very high. Secondly, the legislature cannot initiate a motion of no-confidence under these conditions. The decision lies with the prime minister.

There is a further complication too. Art. 80 did allow the legislature to initiate a motion of no-confidence under certain other conditions, but, if passed, it was up to the president to decide whether or not to dismiss the government.

In the context of this blog, I tend to count Madagascar 1975 as semi-presidential, but only on the basis of Art. 78. For me, if the president still has the power to accept or reject a no-confidence motion, then the government is not fully responsible to the legislature. However, Art. 78 does provide a mechanism for making the government responsible.

I think the issue of whether or not the two-thirds majority is too high a barrier is irrelevant to the classification of countries as semi-presidential or otherwise. It is not part of the definition as adopted in this blog. More than that, whether or not a two-thirds majority is likely to be mustered is a function of contingent political circumstances rather than constitutional law. Obviously, in one-party mid-1970s Madagascar, then the likelihood of two-thirds of the National Assembly voting down the government was more than unlikely. However, in other countries under different conditions, then it is certainly feasible that a two-thirds anti-government majority might emerge. Therefore, there is no theoretical reason for stipulating some majority threshold above which a government becomes ‘not really’ accountable whatever the constitution says. As long as there is a provision for government accountability in the constitution, then, for me, a necessary condition for semi-presidentialism is met whatever the threshold stipulated.

To my mind, the reason why Madagascar 1975 is on the cusp of semi-presidentialism is because of the absence of any parliamentary initiative for a no-confidence motion that, if passed, requires the government to resign. If the only form of responsibility is a government confidence motion, rather than a legislative no-confidence motion, then even the most unpopular government could remain in power simply by not making any issue a matter of confidence and, therefore, not giving the opposition the opportunity to vote it out of office.

That said, I do tend to classify Madagascar 1975 as semi-presidential because, in one sense, the government is responsible to the legislature and, therefore, this necessary condition for semi-presidentialism is met.