Master of Advanced Studies in
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

MIC website

 

The Name of the South African Capital - CS EN

     

The importance of a name and what happens if you decide to change it analysed through the example of the South African Capital.

The South African Government decided to change the name of Pretoria into Tshwane, a name reflecting more the traditional African identity of the country. This decision is not welcome by the majority of South African, and in particular, two minority groups: Afrikaners and Ndebele strongly refuse to accept the decision and claim not to be consulted in the decision making process.

Therefore, the Programme for Reconciliation and Restoration post-Apartheid decided to invite representatives of Afrikaners and Ndebele to discuss the issue. A mediator is involved in leading the discussion.

 

Framing the context

The Government of South Africa within the programme of reconciliation and restoration post-Apartheid has planned to change the name of Pretoria in a name that reflects more the traditional African identity of the country. After consultation, the name Tshwane has been decided.

Actions to accomplish this change has already been undertaken, as for example the change of the boards indicating the name of the city on the streets at its borders. However, the majority of the South African population does not agree with the change, even though the majority of the population of Pretoria seems to welcome the new name.

In particular two minority groups, the Afrikaners and the Ndebele people, strongly disagree with the government decision. The Afrikaners want to keep the name Pretoria and the Ndebele people, who claim to be the first inhabitants of the Pretoria area, want Pretoria to be called with a Ndebele name: Musi.

Given the continuous cultural and racial tensions still present in South Africa, the name of the capital is a very hot issue at the moment in the country. Two are the main topics around which the debate is developed: the real identity of the city and the economic resources needed to change the name.

 

Narrative

The mediator decides to informally consult the parties before the day of the meeting. The representative of the Programme of Reconciliation and Restoration post-Apartheid appointed by the Government told that he took the decision of changing the name of Pretoria after carried out a large consultation of all parties involved at the city level.

The groups involved in the consultation were different citizen associations, however talking with the Ndebele representative the mediator discovered that Ndebele, who are a tribe still living in the traditional manner in villages and who do not mix with the modern living style of the large majority of South African, did not take part to the consultation process. Afrikaner's representative told the mediator that his association does not agree with the decision but that they were in minority so their claims have not been taken into consideration.

After the decision was made public, debates started among all the country, mass- media started talking about it and making a survey about the issue. From the national debate now it seems that the majority of South African does not agree with the change of the name of the capital; furthermore, the echo of the debate crossed the border of the country, and international mass-media started talking about the Pretoria issue. The Government is worried about the escalation of the conflict, therefore, decided to set up a meeting with the representative of the two groups that strongly opposed to the change of the name: Afrikaaners and Ndebele.

 

In-depth analysis of parties and issues and elicitation of real interests

The government, who chose the name Tshwane, claims that the decision has been taken after a large consultation of all parties involved and that the name Tshwane has been decided by the majority of the groups taking part in the consultation.

The government claims that changing the name of Pretoria is a necessary step for the South African reconciliation process activated after the Apartheid period. The motto of the reconciliation process is “forgive but no forget” and in this framework, the name Tshwane is a symbolic reparation for all the abuses suffered by black people until 11 years ago.

The officer representing the government claims that as black people were forced to have beside their African name a Christian name during Apartheid and now choose to be proud of their African name; in the same way Pretoria have to re-gain is African identity being baptised with an African name. This change is a necessary step to ill sufferance caused by segregation and discrimination.

Regarding the hot issue of the cost to put in action the change (1.5 billion RAND, according to the report produced by an independent commission), the government says that this amount of money fall into the normal maintenance budget of the city.

Afrikaners, on their side, claim to be the first people settling in the area and to be the ones who enable the city to be what it is now. Moreover, according to Afrikaners, Pretoria has been a historical place of reconciliation, and not a symbol of Apartheid. They consider the will of the government to change each English or Afrikaans geographical name into an African name a perpetuation of the Apartheid faults, an abuse.

Considering the hot issue of cost, Afrikaners claim that in South Africa at the moment there are more urgent matters on which to spend such huge amount of state revenue, 1.5 billion RAND would be better spent to fight poverty and crime spreading around the country. They also argue how South Africa cannot justify in front of the international community this expense and then pretending to receive more international aids.

Ndebele people, on their side, claim to be the first inhabitants of the region. They are not satisfied, either with the name Pretoria or the name Tshwane, and they claim that the new name of the city must be Musi, in the Ndebele language. Ndebele people accuse the government not to have taken into consideration their requests. Actually, in the debate Ndebele people are not a strong party; the main debate remains between the two names Pretoria or Tshwane.

 

The two issues involved in the debate are:

  • the real identity of the city and
  • the economic resources needed to change the name

The interests of the parties are:

  • To define the real identity of the city and of South Africa (all)
  • To overcome Apartheid abuses (Afrikaners, Government)

 

Focusing on dynamics and singling out opposite argumentative strategies

Interesting enough, all the parties starts from the same Endoxon: “The name of the capital must reflects the origin and the history of a country” (However, I am not completely sure of this interpretation: it could be that there are to different endoxa, one focusing on the history – the Afrikaners point of view; and one focusing on the origin – the black people point of view. However, since each history involves an origin, I think that the crucial point is the interpretation both of the history and of the origin).

 

Government

Standpoint: “Tshwane is the right name of the capital of South Africa.”

Argument: “Tshwane is an African traditional name reflecting the origins and the history of the country.”

Endoxon: “The name of the capital must reflect the origin and the history of a country.”

 

Afrikaners

Standpoint: “Pretoria is the right name of the capital of South Africa.”

Argument: “Pretoria is the historical name reflecting the origin and the history of the country.”

Endoxon: “The name of the capital must reflect the origin and the history of a country.”

 

Ndebele

Standpoint: “Musi is the right name of the capital of South Africa.”

Argument: “Musi is the historical name reflecting the origin and the history of the country.”

Endoxon: “The name of the capital must reflect the origin and the history of a country.”

 

The conflict point, therefore, is that the parties involved do not agree on the interpretation of origin and history of the country: for the government and the Ndebele South Africa belongs essentially to its original and traditional population: black people; for Afrikaners, the impact on the country and on the history made by white people cannot be forgotten or put aside. A mediator, in this case, should work on the valorization of the Endoxon, trying to build the common ground around the perception of origin and history. (not easy in a country as South Africa).

The main argumentative strategies of the parties are (see them in details above):

Government

  • The decision has been taken after a large consultation
  • The name Tshwane is a symbolic reparation for all the abuses suffered by black people
  • The amount of money fall into the normal maintenance budget of the city

Afrikaners

  • They are the first people settling in the area and to be the ones who enable the city to be what it is now.
  • Pretoria has been a historical place of reconciliation
  • To change each English or Afrikaans geographical name into an African name a perpetuation of the Apartheid faults
  • in South Africa there are more urgent matters on which to spend such huge amount of state revenue would be better spent
  • South Africa cannot justify in front of the international community this expense and then pretending to receive more international aids.

Ndebele

  • They are the first inhabitants of the region.

 

Identification of potential for effective resolution by mediation

The issue is very hot because of the history of South Africa. The new government is trying to build a nation under the motto “United in diversity”, but as this case shows, diversity is much more felt than unity in South Africa still nowadays.

The mediator should work on the common ground, so trying to make each party recognise that the origin and the history of a country belong not to only one ethnic group in the country but are made by the contribution of each South African inhabitants with their origins and culture.

If the issue is to create a democratic and pluralistic South Africa the effort should be to overcome Apartheid, without, although, abuse minorities (both the white minority and the tribes still present in the country).

It is not a question of money, but a question of legitimacy. South Africa is not a third world country, but it is a country with a lot of social problems: the first step to overcoming them is to create a common shared ground for all present and future debate where people, besides of their belonging, aim at working for a common better destiny. The government has made a big effort in performing consultation at the city level, however the mediator can suggest the following strategy.

Since the name of the capital is such a relevant issue for the entire population of South Africa, and is such a good occasion to start creating consensus and legitimacy among all the different social and ethnic groups living in the country, the best solution would be to ask the entire population if they want or not the name of Pretoria to be changed, that is if the people feel that this name is part of a common history or if they fell is part of a terrible past. The mediator, therefore, suggests to set up a national referendum to decide if the name of the capital should be changed or not.

 

TOP