A democracy lesson from the Africa of dictators

It is colossally preposterous for OAU’s Central Committee to declare that “the Malagasy Presidential Elections of December 16, 2001 did not produce a legally and constitutionally established government”. The fundamental argument which confirms this intellectual lapse, and inconsistency is rather simple: from a legal standpoint, the legitimacy or non-legitimacy of an election is for the courts of a country, not a committee of national executives, to decide. This means that OAU’s decision has absolutely no value and no legal leg to stand on, especially given that OAU does not have a true binding constitution which can legally constrain its members.



Evidently, this organization needs to remind itself of the very fundamentals of International Public Law. It also needs to stop overstepping the boundaries of its rights and qualifications; it needs to remember that Madagascar is a sovereign nation, and as such, it is free to determine how its leaders should accede to power, and if need be, it is also free to use its courts to sanction the validity or invalidity of its national elections! This is called “the people’s fundamental, and indisputable right to self-determination”, a principle to which the entire world agrees.



Let us remind ourselves that Marc Ravalomanana rose to power following an internal election process which does not call for the involvement or interference of any outside foreign or international forces. Although we would concede that OAU has every right to want to play a political (not legal) role in resolving the Malagasy conflict, it must not overstep the boundaries of its political mediation power, be it to effect a face to face meeting, or to find common grounds between the parties. Thus, OAU had no right to take sides the way it did; one cannot be judge, jury, plaintiff and defendant, all at once. From this strictly legal standpoint, OAU displayed an outrageous and aberrant inconsistency unworthy of those eminent attorneys who are supposed to counsel them on such matters.

Without leaders, Madagascar no longer exists!

Concerning the thorny issue of international recognition, no one can ignore that according to its classic international definition, the State does not exist without three essential elements, i.e. a territory, a population, and a government. This is the reasoning behind OAU’s seemingly logical, but grossly inept conclusion, with regards to the question of recognition: According to OAU, the current Malagasy Administration was not legally and constitutionally established; thus, as far as the organization was concerned, the Sylla Government did not exist. And since one of the three essential elements (i.e. the government) was missing, the Malagasy State did not exist either! This is the kind of faulty logic which led OAU to recognize Madagascar, the State, but not its current government.

L’OAU supports Ratsiraka

It is this inconsistent distinction which flagrantly attests to OAU’s support for Ratsiraka. When OAU tried, without any legal foundation, to recognize the State, but not the current leadership, it sent two distinct messages to the international community. On one hand, it admitted that Madagascar was a State, and on the other, it identified the internal political players. It also decided, unwisely, to overstep its boundaries, once again, by siding with one of them when it had no right to do so!



In other words, one can prove that, theoretically, the organization’s close affinity with Didier Ratsiraka keeps it from accepting the legitimacy of the current Malagasy leadership, even though it fully understands that the Malagasy people have chosen Marc Ravalomanana to be their President.



From a strictly political standpoint, OAU’s decision is rather amusing. How surprising it is to realize that many African dictatorships are not the least bit worried about their own recognition, and their own standing within OAU. This is the Africa of bloody coups d’ état (President Wade’s Senegal, and a few countries, aside) who is trying to tell us something about Democracy! How preposterous! They should follow our lead. Since by definition, “democracy” means “government by the people”, why are they contesting the Malagasy people’s choice? If truth be told, OAU is trying very hard to show nothing but contempt for the Malagasy people’s “right to self-determination.” Shame on them! We do not object to OAU’s right to act as a mediator, but we do resent their taking sides, and their politically driven legal interference.

Toward an inevitable resolution of the crisis

Although we still lack an absolute and total de jure recognition from the International Community, the situation is clear, and the future is positively bright. First, we should note that, through the current situation, recognition of a State or Leadership entails more than just a matter of law or legitimacy. In fact, recognition is a question involving policies, politics, and the men who contribute to them. Thus, behind States (e.g. France), or organizations (e.g. OAU), there are politicians who pull the strings, and now and then, these politicians, who are human, after all, lean one way or another, and cannot escape the diabolical temptations to defend their turf, at all costs! Consequently, it is not surprising that the influential French and African politicians will lend unconditional support to one of the members within their inner circle of power, namely Didier Ratsiraka.



However, total victory on this field of recognition is not far off. France and her allies in other French-speaking countries will not dare to deny us much longer [editor’s note: this article was written right before France’s official recognition]. They run the risk of losing their political and economic foothold in this important Indian Ocean region in which Madagascar plays a key role. This is not the case for the Americans, and the English-speaking countries. It is not certain whether France’s position is a mirror image of OAU’s or vice-versa!



In any event, regardless of the future evolution of each country’s position, Madagascar is not likely to lose. Even if France were to maintain its current stand, the only thing which will take place is a shift in the geostrategic, political, and economic exchange. Thus, if France persists in turning a blind eye, it is quite possible that we will go from a traditionally French-speaking country, to an English-speaking one. Nothing indicates that, economically, this would be to our detriment. No one can contest the supreme economic clout of our first mega allies, in this case, the United States of America. The ball is now in France’s court. We would like to suggest to this country which, up to now, has always maintained that it was our friend, “The sooner you recognize us, the more willing, and the more apt we will be to preserve our century long ties, and our common heritage which, despite everything, the Malagasy people do not wish to see evaporate the same way our gasoline has, of late.”

Interview conducted in Antananarivo on July 02, 2002

Translated by J. F. Razanamiadana