Page Title

Introduction

Like many other African countries, Madagascar experienced a “miscarriage of decolonization” in which decolonization was “never taken to its logical conclusion” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2022: 50). The political decolonisation achieved at the time of independence did not bring about actual independence and failed to put an end to coloniality, which can be construed as the perpetuation of colonialism beyond the end of colonisation. This is partly due to the priority given to political sovereignty over other aspects, including economic, epistemological, ontological, and cultural decolonisation.

​

This paper analyses Madagascar’s cultural politics in the light of debates on decolonisation. More specifically, it will read Madagascar’s 2021 national cultural policy, as well as the initiatives implemented within its framework, as a decolonial attempt to reconstruct and reinforce Malagasy cultural identity, which had been thwarted by colonialism. Using the concept of coloniality of power (Maldonado-Torres 2007; Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2022) as an analytical tool, the paper argues that Madagascar’s national cultural policy aims to drive the decolonisation project by tackling the coloniality of being.

​

The analysis will rely on a qualitative reading of said policy, as well as on two specific initiatives implemented within its framework: the restoration of the Queen’s Palace that was burnt down in 1995 and the creation of an official arena for Hiragasy shows, which are traditional Malagasy performances. Consequently, the paper will be articulated in three principal moments. First, it casts a light on culture as part of the political work of decolonisation by situating Madagascar in its colonial and decolonised context. Then, Madagascar’s cultural policy and the related initiatives will be read using coloniality of being as a critical tool. Finally, insights will be offered as to the reason why, despite this cultural policy marking a shift in cultural politics and reflecting a political will to free Malagasy identity from the shackles of global coloniality, such a decolonial move does not lead to actual decolonisation.

​

Culture and cultural policies as part of the decolonial project

In this paper, I argue that Madagascar’s latest cultural policy is a decolonial project. Although it has not been clearly and officially stated as such, I am reading it as having a decolonial intent as the focus is in reinforcing Malagasy cultural identity, thus Malagasy being, in front of cultural and economic imperialism. Building on the work of the Latin American Modernity/Coloniality group (including Grosfoguel 2007; Mignolo 2007; Quijano 2007) on coloniality, and more particularly borrowing the concept of coloniality of being from Maldonado-Torres (2007), Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2022) asserts that coloniality of being is a component of global coloniality. It pertains to the “dehumanization and depersonalization of colonized Africans into damnés”, who “were denied full humanity and reduced to non-beings who subsisted and lived within the underworld of coloniality” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2022, 6). The experience of colonisation is understandably different for each former colony, and so is the experience of decolonisation. However, “dehumanization and depersonalization” are a shared experience, which explains the use of the analytical tool of coloniality of being as a prism through which to interpret attempts to reverse such dehumanization.

​

Through the creation of hierarchies of culture, knowledge and being, the French colonial project attacked the Malagasy psyche, making the Malagasy colonial subject believe that their traditions, religions, language, history, dances and music, and essentially their being are inferior to those of the colonisers. Arguably, the entire colonial endeavour relied on such debasing of Malagasy people’s sense of being, making it easier to introduce and justify other forms of abuse, whether they be economic, social, or political. “Dehumanization and depersonalization” run so deep that up until this day, the French language is considered as superior to Malagasy in the public subconscious, and one unspoken requirement for considering people as “successful” is their mastery of the French language.

​

In that sense, culture is political since colonial politics targeted cultural identity as a basis for colonial hegemony. In the same way, mobilising culture, through the institution of a cultural policy, can be seen as a political enterprise with decolonial undertones. Arguably, decolonisation is a political work, which might disqualify policies as part of decolonisation efforts as they are not necessarily of a political nature. However, in the present paper, Madagascar’s cultural policy is read as containing elements the aim of which is to reverse the effects of coloniality of being, hence making it political.

​

Madagascar, coloniality, and decolonisation

Madagascar is an island in the southwest Indian Ocean. Its history is marked by several migration waves from East Africa and Southeast Asia, which accounts for its diversity in terms of folklore, traditions, dialects and physical characteristics of its people. Despite such diversity, the country was unified under one central kingdom in 1810 under the reign of Radama I (1810-1828) who is the first one to be recognised as King of Madagascar. The very terms of such a recognition are problematic, since such a recognition was awarded by Great Britain. Recognition from a European nation was then necessary to legitimise local power, which raises questions about the actual legitimacy of such a power and the imperial interests that underlie such an action. Not even a century after the start of the reign of Radama I, Madagascar was made a French colony, with the colonial period going from 1896 to 1960.

​

There is already a rich literature on the history of Madagascar, and a gloss of such a history is outside the scope of the present paper. This section will instead address a couple of historical facts which relate to coloniality of being and the cultural and epistemological basis of colonisation and colonialism. The first one of those is the elimination of the teaching of Malagasy history from school curricula. Indeed, one of the measures implemented during the colonial period was literally to erase Malagasy history, and replace it with French one. French history and literature were taught in schools, which can be interpreted as an act of colonising Malagasy people’s mind and being. For instance, through erasure of what made up their identity, Malagasy people were taught that there was a hierarchy of being, at the top of which one could find the French, and at the bottom rung of which the Malagasy found themselves. They were essentially dehumanised, as they were denied humanity through erasure of their history and the rendering of their language and literature as primitive at best, and non-existent at worst. Such a measure is a clear example of how the French colonial project in Madagascar was predicated on linguicide, epistemicide, culturicide, and historicide. In other words, it was the being itself that was alienated by the colonisers.

The second measure is malgachisation, which arguably was an attempt to reverse such coloniality of being. It was a measure instituted during the Malagasy Second Republic (1975-1992), which was a socialist state. It consisted of teaching the entire school curriculum using the Malagasy language. It can be read as an attempt to re-valorise the Malagasy language and identity that were thwarted by colonialism. The First Republic (1958-1972) was then deemed to be a form of neo-colonialism as French control continued the governance style immediately adapted from colonial rule. It was thought that the First Republic did not bring about genuine independence, a perceived failure that the revolutionary socialist Government of the Second Republic sought to address. Malgachisation was however met with massive criticism, and is, up to this day, blamed for the downward developmental trajectory of the country. It is often invoked how the educational level of Malagasy students started plummeting from the moment all the classes and subjects were taught in Malagasy. Instead of restoring the glory of the Malagasy language, this measure therefore had the reverse effect and crystallised even more the Malagasy inferiority complex, whereby the French language is seen as superior and conducive to personal success and national development.

​

Those historical moments, be it the prohibition of the teaching of Malagasy history during the colonial period or the use of Malagasy as the main language of education, speak to how the mind and sense of self are a major field on which power battles were fought, whether it is to establish colonial rule or to counteract its long-term damaging effects. However, if it is education that was mobilised to attempt to reverse coloniality of being in the past, one can nowadays note a mobilisation of culture in order to valorise Malagasy identity.

​

Madagascar’s cultural policy: a decolonial reading

This part aims to analyse Madagascar’s national cultural policy in the light of the previous debates on global coloniality. The main text on cultural policy is Act no. 2021-019 of 01 July 2021 which repeals former Act no. 2005-006 of 22 August 2005 on national cultural policy for socio-economic development. The current policy will be read using a decolonial framework. But in order to highlight decolonial intentions or lack thereof in the present policy, it is first necessary to retrace how it has shifted from the previous law which it repealed.

​

Act no. 2005-006, that is to say the former cultural policy, was embedded in a discourse around development. Culture was conceptualised as contributing to socio-economic development. In the explanatory statement of the law, it is asserted that “it seems increasingly necessary to use the living culture of Malagasy people, which consists of both their identity and diversity, as a source of wealth” (Republic of Madagascar 2005, 1). The main point of promoting culture was therefore in order to achieve economic development. Cultural identity was seen as an asset that can be commodified and capitalised on in order to boost Madagascar’s economic growth. The aim of that cultural policy was to “capitalise on cultural heritage that Malagasy people inherited from their ancestors in order to build sustainable peace which is conducive to a real and genuine development”(Republic of Madagascar 2005, 1). The clear emphasis was therefore on the developmental and economic gains that cultural heritage could help achieve. This is a reflection of the priorities of the government that was then in place.

​

The current national cultural policy represents a departure from such a stance. Though developmental talk is still present, the emphasis is heavily on how it is necessary to valorise and be proud of Malagasy cultural identity and diversity. The aim is to foster a sense of pride and oneness, and instill nationalism in citizens. The explanatory statement of the policy is indicative of this will to strengthen national identity: “given the evolution of new technologies and considering globalisation which is making major strides, it is necessary to retain the distinctive spiritual and material, intellectual and affective characteristics of Malagasy society” (Republic of Madagascar 2021, 1). It is clear here that Malagasy national identity is pitted against global culture. That statement is an acknowledgement of cultural imperialism and of how it can lead to acculturation, and even culturicides. Such a stance is interpreted as a decolonial attempt.

​

Indeed, coloniality is the continuation of colonial patterns of hegemony beyond the period of colonisation per se. A decolonial initiative is therefore an attempt to counter such a phenomenon. By trying to reinforce Malagasy identity, this policy is countering the aspect of global coloniality which Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2022, 2020, 2018) and Maldonado-Torres (2007) have termed “coloniality of being”. It is the process of creating hierarchies of humanity, so as to legitimate the use of violence on whole groups that are deemed as sub-human. The 2021 national cultural policy aim to lift Malagasy identity is arguably a decolonial strategy in that it refuses coloniality of being whereby Euromodernity is deemed as a superior cultural model. Such a decolonial intention is apparent in the global objective of the cultural policy, which is to instill in citizens a sense of “dignity, integrity, national pride, and patriotism”(Republic of Madagascar 2021, 10). Colonialism has dehumanized and demeaned Malagasy people so much that in a general way, what is French is considered as superior to what is Malagasy, and France per se seems to be synonymous with the promised land. By putting the emphasis on the value of Malagasy cultural identity, this cultural policy is arguably seeking to reverse the effects of coloniality of being.

​

One flagship initiative within the framework of this cultural policy is the renovation of the Queen’s Palace that was burnt down in 1995. The Palace was initially called Rovan’Antananarivo, and was an emblem of Antananarivo, the capital city of Madagascar. Rova is the Malagasy word for royal domain. Once renovated, it was renamed Rovan’i Madagasikara, moving the emphasis from a single city and an ethnicity to the entire country and the nation. That denotes public officials and state crafters’ willingness to instil in citizens a sense of belonging to one nation and to restore a sense of pride that was thwarted by decades of colonialism and continuing global coloniality. The Palace therefore serves as a symbol for the nationalist project of nation-state building. It is a resource that the state mobilizes to fuel national pride and to counter coloniality of being. The project of nationalism has consistently prioritised the presentation of a unified nation. Its ideology aims to create a shared historical memory (Mhiripiri 2009). The endeavour of nationalism consists in establishing a national narrative, iconic figures, and cultural customs. One such figure is therefore the Queen’s Palace that is used to generate pride, unity, and patriotism in order to resist coloniality.

​

Another initiative that falls within the scope of Madagascar’s national cultural policy is the creation of an official arena for the practice of Hiragasy, which is a traditional performance from the central highlands of Madagascar. Hiragasy is historically associated with lower classes and is scorned by the upper echelons of society, which are the inheritors of colonial privileges and which prefer Euromodernity (Mauro 2001; Raison-Jourde 1995; 1991). This initiative aligns with the purpose outlined in the national cultural policy, which is to “safeguard, promote and enhance the cultural heritage of Malagasy society” (Republic of Madagascar 2021, 5). The creation of the official arena signifies the state’s recognition of the performance. This is yet another instance of the state’s efforts to elevate indigenous cultural expressions and to eradicate their reputation as inferior forms which is inherited from colonial times. The public authorities are recuperating Hiragasy in order to build a national sense and consensus for many people and generations to come. The traditional performance that was previously marginalised is now valorised in official discourses. Public officials therefore use Hiragasy as an instrument of nation-building and the forging of a national consciousness, thus countering coloniality.

​

All in all, Madagascar’s national cultural policy and the related initiatives bear witness to the state’s efforts to reverse the effects of coloniality of being through nation-building and the valorisation of national identity. Those decolonial efforts however are not conducive to effective decolonization.

​

A “miscarriage of decolonisation”? The way forward

The above initiatives are not enough to bring about real decolonisation. Indeed, for a decolonisation project to be efficient, one needs to simultaneously tackle other elements of colonial project, especially the epistemological front. Even if elements of Madagascar’s national cultural policy could be read as adopting a decolonial stance, the decoloniality project they carry is a shallow one, as it fails to take into account all elements of global coloniality. As discussed above, the policy mainly focuses on the coloniality of being. But arguably, epistemological freedom is the basis for any other type of freedom and will contribute to creating African futures. Ndlovu-Gatsheni insists on “the necessity of epistemic freedom as an essential prerequisite for launching genuine African futures capable of delivering both epistemic and economic freedom” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2018, 249). We cannot invent African futures as Africans, and achieve economic freedom without achieving epistemic freedom first. It is thus necessary to root any decolonial initiative into a fight for epistemic freedom. That explains the reason why the decolonial position adopted in Madagascar’s cultural policy is ineffective in achieving the desired transformations, and why even today, there remains a persistent perception that Malagasy culture is inferior to the global one. For the project to succeed, it needs to be rooted in an epistemic struggle and to take into consideration the knowledge front.

Madagascar’s national cultural policy needs to tackle the coloniality of knowledge, and as such, needs to be part of a larger policy initiative that is transversal and includes other stakeholders and departments. In concrete terms, the coloniality of knowledge does not only concern culture but mainly education. One place where to start the epistemic fight is by decolonising curriculum. The isolated action of the Ministry of Culture through the cultural policy and the related initiatives cannot guarantee effective decoloniality. Departments such as the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research need to be involved in the decolonisation project, and the knowledge terrain should be specifically targeted. Indeed, “since power and knowledge are inextricably intertwined, control of the domain of knowledge generation and knowledge cultivation remain very important for the maintenance of asymmetrical global power structures in place since the dawn of Euro-North American-centric modernity.” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2018, 8). Control of the knowledge front has always been at the basis of Euro-North American hegemony in other domains, be it the cultural, the socio-economic, or the political arena. To bring about effective decolonisation, Madagascar’s cultural policy therefore needs to be part of a larger decolonial policy apparatus that primarily targets knowledge production.

​

This paper analysed Madagascar's national cultural policy and related initiatives through the concept of coloniality, especially that of coloniality of being. Coloniality is the continuation of oppression beyond colonisation. Madagascar’s cultural policy demonstrates the state’s willingness to valorise Malagasy cultural identity and to foster patriotism and national pride. By so doing, it attempts to counter the effects of coloniality of being, as Malagasy identity is valorised and lifted in the face of global culture. However, such a decolonial position alone fails to bring about effective decolonisation. Decolonial efforts must be part of a larger multi-sectoral policy initiative targeting mainly coloniality of knowledge, as that is the historical bedrock of power asymmetries between the North and the South.

​