Government strengthening: Rajoelina appoints three new ministers to stabilize a precarious power

Mis à jour le 22 May 2026

In 2026, Madagascar finds itself at a delicate crossroads where political stability seems at the mercy of rapid changes. Since the recent government reshuffle orchestrated by President Andry Rajoelina, the situation has become more complex, illustrating how a political crisis can weaken a power already under considerable strain. The appointment of three key figures from the military and police sectors is part of an explicit strategy aimed at strengthening the executive branch’s control in the face of persistent social tensions linking protesters, the opposition, and economic elites. The fragile alliance between these security actors now appears to form the basis of a “government strengthening” policy which, far from providing a lasting solution, instead demonstrates a desire for isolation and crisis management without genuine national consensus. These challenges are not limited to a simple ministerial restructuring, but illustrate a collective responsibility in the face of a multidimensional crisis where institutional stability, democratic legitimacy, and internal security are inextricably linked. The complexity of this situation necessitates careful consideration of the path forward, lest Madagascar descend into chronic instability to the detriment of its citizens.

Rajoelina’s strategy: a swift appointment to consolidate power during a crisis.

Since the appointment of General Fortunat Ruphin Zafisambo as Prime Minister, President Rajoelina has embarked on a resolute process to consolidate his power. Less than 24 hours after this decisive move, three individuals from the armed forces and police were appointed to high-level positions, thus signaling the security-focused orientation of his policy. The stated priority is clear: to establish increased control over stability, while affirming the commitment to maintaining order in the face of demonstrations and other social tensions shaking the capital and several regions of the country.

The New Faces of Security Policy in Madagascar in 2026 The first to be appointed isMajor General Deramasinjaka Manantsoa Rakotoarivelo, former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, now head of the Ministry of the Armed Forces. His exemplary career, recognized for his loyalty and rigor, makes him a key player in implementing the intensive security policies essential in a context where the credibility of the State is severely tested. Meanwhile, the appointment ofMandimbin’ny Aina Randriambelo, Inspector General of Police, to head the Public Security Directorate, symbolizes the desire to intensify the repressive presence in the face of protests. Finally, the retention of Andriantsarafara Rakotondrazaka as Minister Delegate to the Gendarmerie illustrates the increased responsibilities entrusted to the military, a move that reflects a concern for greater control over law enforcement. The stakes and motivations behind this expedited appointment

While the speed of these appointments may seem surprising at first glance, it is actually part of a strategic strategy. By appointing these security officials even before finalizing the complete composition of the government, Rajoelina and his Prime Minister are seeking to demonstrate that their priority is stability and control of the security situation. This has profound significance: the regime’s security is not merely a matter of governance, but has become a personal political endeavor that could directly affect their actual power. The situation in Madagascar in 2026 is marked by a context in which the president has permanently established himself in the Iavoloha Palace, a decision that illustrates his desire to centralize power in the face of a growing climate of uncertainty.

Social tensions and their impact on political stability

The demonstrations, often fueled by an acute economic crisis, are feeding growing dissatisfaction. The population, especially the younger generation, expresses a complete disconnect with the institutions and the local political class. The mobilization of Generation Z in the face of the crisis reflects this divide and further complicates the management of stability. The question then becomes: to what extent can the use of force help to de-escalate or, conversely, exacerbate the crisis? The answer lies in a delicate balance, where every decision must be carefully considered. Security measures: a paradox between control and economic development Faced with this persistent crisis, President Rajoelina has also prioritized lifting the current curfew, a measure deemed paralyzing for the economy, particularly in the capital. The desire to ease this restriction aims to promote the recovery of tourism, a vital sector for Madagascar, but it must not obscure the risk of a resurgence of violence or acts of sabotage. In practice, all these decisions are dividing public opinion: on the one hand, the need to guarantee order and security; on the other, the fear of escalating tensions and weakening state institutions.

Economic Challenges Linked to the Political Crisis

The tourism sector, a true engine of growth for Madagascar, experienced a drastic decline in 2024, and the recovery remains fragile. The security crisis, exacerbated by the increased presence of the armed forces, could either help restore confidence or fuel the existing distrust among the population. Economic recovery will largely depend on the regime’s ability to manage the tension between security measures and constructive dialogue with civil society. For example, the implementation of the 2026 budget bill will be crucial in determining whether Madagascar can regain fiscal stability and revive its economic activity.

The risks of a security escalation at the highest levels of government. This massive recourse to the military and police in managing the crisis raises the question of the delineation of roles between security forces and the political elite. The concentration of responsibilities in the hands of high-ranking military officers could create a worrying precedent, where authoritarianism risks prevailing over democracy. Furthermore, this strategy risks hindering constructive dialogue with the opposition and civil society, whose mistrust is already profound. Such a situation could ultimately lead Madagascar toward a period of states of emergency or law enforcement operations that would further weaken the fragile national cohesion.

Prospects for stability and participatory governance

To overcome this critical phase, a reform of the governance model should be considered, incorporating genuine dialogue with all political and social actors. Stability cannot be decreed by force alone, but requires a collective commitment that builds trust and legitimacy. The international community, particularly through assistance and advice, could play a key role in facilitating such efforts. The question remains: can Madagascar preserve its institutions while strengthening its national unity in the face of this crisis?

The fundamentals for a stable future: dialogue, reforms, and transparency

The real challenge for Madagascar lies in its ability to establish a lasting climate of trust that transcends security concerns. Transparency in the management of appointments, especially those of high-ranking military officials, must be a priority to prevent any slide toward authoritarianism. The pursuit of greater openness to public information is also crucial.

Citizen participation is key to the political reconstruction process. By supporting inclusive governance, Madagascar could envision an economic recovery based on strengthened national unity, consistent with the imperatives of transparency and structural reforms.

The reforms needed to consolidate democracy Institutions must be reformed to ensure better representation and limit the exercise of power to a group of individuals, often perceived as detached from the realities of the population. Security sector reform, an essential legal reform, must accompany this overhaul to guarantee a fair and independent administration of justice. Transparency in appointments, particularly in the selection of security officials, would strengthen legitimacy and reduce the risk of authoritarian excesses. Stability also depends on holding public actors accountable, in a context where holding a calm national debate has become essential to fostering citizen engagement and building genuine social cohesion.

Lessons learned for governance in a crisis context

The case of Madagascar in 2026 serves as an example to all political actors on the African continent and beyond, illustrating how the concentration of power through security means can produce perverse effects. The temptation to favor authoritarian governance to overcome a crisis must not obscure the need for constructive dialogue based on legitimacy and democracy. This critical period could serve as a catalyst for profound institutional renewal or, conversely, precipitate a slide toward even more autocratic governance. The international community, in navigating these contrasting dynamics, must ensure it supports a shift toward lasting stability rather than exacerbated authoritarianism.

How does the appointment of military personnel influence democracy in Madagascar?

It may strengthen security in the short term, but it also risks eroding democratic legitimacy if it is not accompanied by institutional reforms and dialogue with civil society.

What are the risks of increased security control for long-term stability? Power that is too concentrated in the hands of security officials can lead to authoritarianism, hindering the development of participatory governance that is both fragile and ultimately prevents it from taking root.

What reforms are essential for more transparent governance? Revising appointment processes, reforming the judiciary, establishing transparent access to information, and holding public actors accountable are key steps to strengthening legitimacy and national cohesion.