South Africa is currently engaged in a significant discussion about potentially renaming the world-renowned Kruger National Park. This proposed change, driven by some local politicians, aims to move away from honoring Paul Kruger, a 19th-century president of the South African Republic, whose legacy is viewed by many as intertwined with the country’s oppressive past.
Paul Kruger is a revered figure for Afrikaners, descendants of early European settlers, who see him as a hero of resistance against British colonialism. However, for the majority of South Africans, he is a symbol of apartheid and racial discrimination, responsible for dispossession and exclusion. This perspective fuels the movement to rename landmarks, a trend that has seen many South African cities, towns, and streets renamed since the end of apartheid in 1994.
The debate over the Kruger National Park’s name is particularly sensitive due to its immense economic importance. The park attracts nearly a million visitors annually, contributing significantly to South Africa’s tourism industry, which accounts for about 9% of the national economy. Critics of the renaming proposal, including tourism experts and lobby groups like AfriForum, warn that changing the name could harm the park’s global recognition and negatively impact tourism revenue, especially in a country grappling with high unemployment.
The proposal, initially put forward by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) during Heritage Month, also faced internal challenges when the suggested alternative name, ‘Skukuza,’ was criticized for its own problematic connotations. ‘Skukuza,’ meaning ‘he who sweeps clean,’ was the nickname of the park’s first warden, James Stevenson-Hamilton, who was known for his role in removing indigenous communities from the park’s land.
While the motion to rename the park was adopted by the Mpumalanga provincial legislature, it is not legally binding. Any official name change requires a national process overseen by the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC). Experts like Dr. Nkadimeng Mahosi, chairperson of the SAGNC, have pointed out that the provincial move appears to be more about political posturing than following due process, and that such a significant change for a national landmark involves multiple government departments and careful consideration.
The discussion highlights the ongoing tension in South Africa between acknowledging and rectifying historical injustices and managing the economic realities. While the drive to honor indigenous heritage is recognized, the potential economic fallout from renaming such a globally recognized institution remains a major concern, especially given the country’s high unemployment rates.