There is no link between the name ‘Azania' and the indigenous people of South Africa

The Star

19 hours ago

Kenneth Mokgatlhe | Published 22 minutes ago
We should be asking ourselves where the word 'Azania' originates from, which language, and how it is related to the people of South Africa. There are no cultural, historical, linguistic, or political connections to the name, says the writer.
Image: Picture: Henk Kruger/ Independent Newspapers
The proposal of constitutional amendment by the African Transformation Movement (ATM) to change the name of South Africa to the 'Republic of Azania' is nonsensical, unnecessary, and irrelevant to the inhabitants of this place.
We should be asking ourselves where the word 'Azania' originates from, which language, and how it is related to the people of South Africa. There are no cultural, historical, linguistic, or political connections to the name.
It was during my time as a young and vibrant activist within the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) that I was firmly convinced that South Africa should be renamed 'Azania'. I had been persuaded by the existing argument that 'South' was merely a geographical direction and therefore did not have substantive cultural and historical connections befitting a nation's identity.
However, I later realised that my comprehension of the term 'Azania' was very limited to its use within Pan Africanist and Black Consciousness discourses.
Never mind my strong ideological conviction and commitment, I was unable to intellectually express a clear historical or cultural justification for the adoption of the name, nor could I trace its relevance in juxtaposition to the people, history, and identity of the country.
It is important to note that the name 'Azania' has no historical or cultural connection to my people. It was never part of our vocabulary or identity. The term did not exist in our oral traditions or historical records, and my community had never encountered it before modern political movements began to invoke it.
It is important to note that the pre-colonial South African society was home to various independent kingdoms and queendoms, each governed by its rulers. I descend from the Bahurutshe, one of the largest sub-groups of the Batswana people, who previously occupied the area now known as the Marico region or Zeerust.
Our ancestors referred to their kingdom as Kaditshwene (a place of baboons) and Tshwenyane (a little baboon), an ancient twin-city settlement that thrived between 1300 to 1884. Like many other indigenous polities, it functioned as a sovereign polity, free from foreign or external domination.
There was a dramatic shift in the geopolitical landscape after the Berlin Conference of 1884, where European powers gathered to partition Africa among themselves, which laid the foundation for the modern nation-states we recognise today.
As a result, we — descendants of various kingdoms — were forced to adapt to these new political realities and form countries under Western-imposed frameworks.
A country known as the Union of South Africa was established in 1910, led and governed by white minority rule. A referendum was held in 1960, where white South Africans decided to leave the Commonwealth, became independent, and referred to themselves as the Republic of South Africa on 31 May 1961.
While the name 'South Africa' is descriptive of a geographic location, the name gives a strong cultural, political, and historical connection. It reminds us of different epochs in our history and how we interacted with other countries.
The name South Africa is not unique in the world, as other countries have historically adopted names which are geographically descriptive of their land, such as South Sudan, Central African Republic (CAR), North and South Korea, North Macedonia, and East Timor.
My discomfort at the term Azania was vindicated after I came across one of the compelling writings of South African freedom fighter and journalist Paul Trewhela, who is now based in the United Kingdom.
Through his sharp historical analysis, he provides a well-substantiated account of the origins of the name 'Azania', demonstrating that it was a term imposed by slave traders/masters to demean the Black Africans in some parts of East Africa.
Trewhela contends that the name 'Azania' does not bear any link to the indigenous peoples of South Africa and carries connotations or implications of oppression rather than liberation.
His esteemed scholarship helped clarify that the name 'Azania' lacks authentic historical, cultural, political, or linguistic connections to South Africa and its people, reinforcing my earlier doubts about its relevance and appropriateness as a national name.
'The name 'Azania' celebrates the centuries of enslavement of black Africans by Islamist Arab imperialism down the east coast of Africa. It is a disgrace for reactionary ideologists to be using this concocted name to replace the name South Africa,' he remarked.
This name, 'Azania,' is primarily used by individuals who identify themselves as revolutionaries or radicals within South Africa's academic, political, and social spheres. It is largely preferred by black radicals in academia and by political formations considered to be on the far left, such as the PAC, the Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO), the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and trade unions affiliated with the National Council of Trade Union (NACTU), among others.
Like I once did in the past, many of these individuals adopt the term 'Azania' as a symbolic rejection of apartheid and white supremacy.
Their chief motivation emanates from a desire to eliminate any association with the apartheid regime, including the name 'South Africa', which they regard as a legacy of colonialism and racial oppression.
Mokgatlhe is a political analyst and consultant.