Research focused (1) in a first-time ever research on the “Council of Malagasy Reconciliation” (CFM, i.e. “Comité de Famiphavanana Malagasy”, a 2013 founded, high-ranking, constitutional institution, based in Antananarivo, whose tasks include the mediation of acute conflicts on all levels on Madagascar. (2) Another main research topic were local strategies against insecurity. The eight periods of field work (one to two weeks each) in four regions (Bongolava, Vakinankaratra, Menabe, Antananarivo-Analamanga) focused on so-called village conventions (dina) and the development of a totally new phenomenon of vigilantism (the two groups Zazamainty and Lambamena) in central and western Malagasy regions. (3) A third main aspect of the investigation was aiming to elaborate the ongoing unique political dynamic on the national level, as an example of Malagasy conflict negotiation. Research focused in particular on the dispute between three main political opponents as the regular Presidential elections in November 2018 approached, including shifting political alliances, and several months of demonstrations. (4) Research on the historical dynamics of these main aspects flanked the field work, with a period of field work in Maurice (May 2017) to explore the impact and experiences of actors of the Indian Ocean Commission, a regional oriented international organization, strongly implied in past peace talks since 2009.
Overview of main results: (1) The turn from war to peace on Madagascar since the 20th century, it was discovered, was the unintentional side-effect of a new kind of conservative impetus: the growing valorization and institutionalization of “Malagasiness”, i.e. of special Malagasy values and traditions of consent since the 20th century. “Malagasy solidarity” (fihavanana) and some other, similar ideas of mutual respect became, in an exceptional move, the normative basis of modern Madagascar, and pillars of national identity and pride. As a consequence, the possibility of a degeneration of conflicts into a spiral of violence is on Madagascar, until now, regularly interrupted – leading to a pacification of society. (2) The ethnographic evidence collected fits well in this overall picture: The CFM should be understood as the latest variant of the dynamic of heritagization, and of the institutionalization of the solidarity value. The political dynamics between 2016-2019, though, repeated again the well-established pattern of conflict solution strategies working against the cycle of physical violence since independence. Beyond the sketched particularity of a normativity of consent, though, the postcolonial state on Madagascar is as dysfunctional and “shadowy” as in many other African countries, as the quest of rural inhabitants and vigilantes for restoring public order and security reveals. (3) The Malagasy case study allows to suggest an important conclusion: The decision to engage or not to engage in a cycle of mounting physical violence is conditioned foremost by the normativity interiorized through socialization, education, and social practice.
Overview of exploitation and dissemination: Scientific exploitation included working paper presentations of the ongoing research at three conferences, a lecture at the Indian Ocean Study Group at the Institute of Social Anthropology in Halle and the organization of two workshops (one respective at the universities of Antananarivo and Halle), with two working papers presented at each workshop. Publications include journal articles (one published, two in press, and two submitted) and a book chapter (submitted). A first draft of a monograph on the normativity of Malagasy solidarity and the turn from war to peace on Madagascar has been written, and a blog for the exchange with scientists and the greater public was kept. Dissemination activities include further four lectures at the International French school and the organization of two “Peace and Conflict talks” in Antananarivo.
