Madagascar has entered a fragile period after two weeks of protests in Antananarivo and a rare public message from a military unit urging security forces not to fire on demonstrators. With the country awaiting President Andry Rajoelina’s response, the situation raises familiar questions about the role of the army in political crises and the potential ripple effects on the economy and humanitarian operations.

A tense capital awaiting clarity

Antananarivo has been on edge since demonstrations began on September 25, according to accounts from church sources and local reporting. Father Cosimo Alvati, a Salesian missionary with long experience in the country, told the Catholic news agency Fides that the public is waiting for President Andry Rajoelina’s statements after security forces used violent tactics to disperse protests. The unrest is the latest flare-up in a capital that has repeatedly been the stage for political crises over the past two decades. Rajoelina, who first rose to prominence during the 2009 upheaval, leads a country where political tensions often converge in the streets of the highland capital before moving into formal negotiations.

Signals from the barracks

The most striking development came on October 11, when a military unit known as Capsat publicly called on security forces to refuse orders to open fire on protesters, according to Fides. For many in Madagascar, the name Capsat carries historical weight. During the 2009 crisis, elements of the military—including personnel linked to administrative and technical corps—played a decisive role by refusing to suppress protests, a move that preceded a change in power. Any sign of internal dissent or calls for restraint within the security forces today matters because stability in Madagascar has often hinged on whether police, gendarmes, and soldiers act in concert. Even a limited split in the chain of command can quickly reshape a political standoff beyond politics

Political uncertainty in Madagascar tends to land hardest on ordinary households and small businesses. The capital’s economy depends on open roads, reliable transport, and functioning markets; prolonged unrest can disrupt daily earnings, raise prices, and slow trade into and out of the city. Nationally, the stakes are higher still. Madagascar remains one of the world’s poorest countries, heavily exposed to climate shocks and reliant on donor support. Key sectors—from vanilla and cloves to mining operations like nickel and cobalt—are sensitive to political risk and supply-chain disruptions. Humanitarian agencies active in the country’s drought-prone south and cyclone-hit east also watch stability in the capital closely, since administrative bottlenecks and security concerns in Antananarivo can ripple into program delivery countrywide.

Echoes of past crises and paths to de-escalation

Madagascar has experienced recurring political flashpoints in 2002, 2009, and 2018–2023, often centered on contested authority, street mobilization, and the stance of the security services. The current moment fits that pattern: protests, a forceful response, and a pause while leaders and institutions signal their next steps. In similar episodes, outside actors such as regional bodies or international partners have encouraged restraint and dialogue, while domestic mediation efforts—often involving religious leaders and civil society—have helped set conditions for de-escalation. Whether the government’s next moves include public concessions, investigations into the use of force, or invitations to talks will shape the risk of further confrontation. The cohesion of the security forces—and adherence to clear rules on the use of force—will be just as decisive

Three things will determine the direction of travel. First, the content and tone of President Rajoelina’s anticipated statement could either cool temperatures or harden positions. Second, the behavior of police and the military, particularly in response to future protests, will show whether the call for restraint gains traction inside the security apparatus. Third, signals from the courts, electoral and oversight bodies, and respected mediators may open space for negotiations. For a country where political turbulence has real costs for families, farmers, traders, and aid operations, even modest steps toward dialogue and restraint can make an immediate difference.