By Davina Murden
Until the youth-led protests of 2025 that led to the ousting of former President Andry Rajoelina, Madagascar was ruled under what may be described as a form of ‘silent authoritarianism’. While these protests, largely driven by Gen-Z, appeared to signal a rejection of undemocratic governance, their aftermath amounted to little more than a reaffirmation of the elite dominance that has long characterised Malagasy politics. Against this backdrop, important questions emerge regarding the voice of the powerless and the prospects for democratic transformation.
Madagascar’s coup history
Since gaining independence in 1960, Madagascar has experienced four military coups or military-led political transitions: in 1972, 1975, 2009 and 2025. Similar to the events of 2025, the 1972 coup was largely precipitated by youth mobilisation, particularly students. The uprising was directed against the pro-French policies of Madagascar’s first president, Philibert Tsiranana, and an education system that many viewed as too French-oriented. These grievances were compounded by broader socio-economic concerns, including low wages and a rising cost of living.
On the other hand, the 1975 coup was principally linked to growing ethnic and regional tensions within the military government led by General Ramanantsoa. It was during this crisis that Ramanantsoa’s successor, Colonel Ratsimandrava, was assassinated only days after assuming office. The 2009 military coup emerged from escalating tensions between President Marc Ravalomanana and Rajoelina, who at that time served as Mayor of Antanarivo. The tensions began in 2008 when the government delayed the disbursal of funds for various local government infrastructure projects and refused to facilitate cooperation between central and municipal governments. Tensions intensified when Ravalomanana’s government closed Viva TV, a privately owned television station affiliated with Rajoelina, which the latter believed was against the interest of press freedom and democracy. It is important to highlight that Rajoelina rose to power with the help of the elite military unit known as . Ironically, that same military unit contributed to his downfall during the 2025 coup.
Key factors that culminated in the 2025 Gen-Z led Coup
The protests that officially started in September 2025 and lasted for three weeks were led primarily by Madagascar’s Gen Z population. Their frustration and anger were initially triggered by recurring water and electricity outages across the country. However, these shortages merely represented the visible symptoms of deeper socio-economic and political challenges that had accumulated over several years.
The protests were also fuelled by growing dissatisfaction with what many citizens perceived as entrenched corruption and the concentration of political power within a narrow elite group. Although Madagascar had formally maintained democratic institutions, critics argued that governance increasingly reflected patterns of patronage, weak accountability and limited responsiveness to citizen concerns.
Social media played a crucial role in transforming localised grievances into a nationwide movement. Through digital platforms, Gen-Z activists disseminated information, coordinated demonstrations and exposed instances of perceived government misconduct. As the demonstrations expanded, demands evolved beyond immediate socio-economic concerns to include calls for President Rajoelina’s resignation. What began as a movement centred on service delivery and economic hardship developed into a broader challenge to the political status quo. Ultimately, the scale and persistence of the protests created conditions that facilitated military intervention, culminating in the September 2025 coup and the ousting of Rajoelina.
A not-so-bright future for Madagascar?
Shortly after Colonel Randrianirina assumed power, many Malagasy citizens took to the streets enthusiastically chanting ‘Merci Colonel’, expressing hope that the military would finally address corruption, poor governance and declining living standards. Such enthusiasm is understandable given the widespread frustrations that fuelled the protests. Nevertheless, historical experience suggests that caution is warranted.
Madagascar’s political trajectory reveals a persistent pattern through which military interventions are initially welcomed as corrective measures against unpopular governments, but ultimately a failure to transform the underlying structures that produced instability. The 1972, 1975 and 2009 political crises all generated expectations of renewal. Yet, each transition was followed by the re-emergence of elite-centred politics and institutional fragility. There is little evidence thus far that the 2025 transition has fundamentally altered this pattern.
First, Randrianirina’s assumption of power itself raises important democratic concerns. Although the Gen-Z movement demanded political accountability and systemic reform, the transfer of power ultimately occurred through military intervention rather than constitutional democratic procedures. Upon taking power, Randrianirina announced that the armed forces would govern the country through a transitional authority for a period between eighteen months and two years before elections would be held. Such an arrangement effectively places political authority in the hands of unelected military actors for an extended period, limiting immediate democratic accountability.
Second, the new administration suspended key democratic institutions, including the Senate, the Independent National Electoral Commission and other constitutional oversight bodies. While these measures were justified as necessary for national reconstruction, the suspension of institutions responsible for electoral management, constitutional review and human rights oversight weakens the checks and balances that are fundamental to democratic governance. Critics have therefore questioned whether the transition represents democratic renewal or merely the replacement of one form of concentration of power with another.
Third, CAPSAT’s leadership has demonstrated a willingness to disregard constitutional constraints. Although Madagascar’s High Constitutional Court reportedly called for elections within a much shorter timeframe, Randrianirina rejected that call and insisted that the military would oversee a transition lasting up to two years. This decision illustrates a broader pattern in which military leaders, rather than civilian institutions, determine the rules and duration of political transition.
Finally, recent developments have fuelled growing concerns among the very Gen-Z activists who helped to bring about political change. Reports indicate that youth activists and protest leaders have been arrested on allegations related to state security. For many protesters, the gap between the promises of the revolution and the realities of military-led governance has become increasingly apparent.
Conclusion
The 2025 ‘Coupvolution’ in Madagascar demonstrates both the power and the limits of popular mobilisation. The Gen-Z movement successfully challenged an increasingly popular order and forced a moment of national reckoning. Yet, the eventual outcome illustrates how quickly revolutionary momentum can be absorbed by existing structures of power.
Rather than representing a definitive break from Madagascar’s past, the coup appears to reaffirm a longstanding pattern in which political transitions remain dominated by military and political elites. The central lesson from Madagascar’s experience is therefore that meaningful democratic transformation requires more than the removal of leaders. It requires the creation of institutions capable of ensuring accountability, inclusion and genuine citizen participation.
Until these deeper structural challenges are addressed, Madagascar’s cycles of protest, coup and elite reconfiguration are likely to continue, leaving the aspirations of ordinary citizens perpetually deferred.
Dr Davina Murden is a Mauritian researcher with over eight years of experience in the fields of constitutionalism, the African human rights system, democracy and public participation processes.