A significant proposal to rename the province of KwaZulu-Natal has ignited a debate over history, identity, and the legacy of colonialism. The call, made by AmaZulu King Misuzulu kaZwelithini, advocates changing the province’s name to simply “KwaZulu,” a move he argues would better reflect the region’s Zulu heritage.
The King issued the proposal last Thursday during the 147th commemoration of the Battle of Isandlwana in Nquthu. He stated that the name “KwaZulu” more accurately represents the province’s cultural and historical identity as the ancestral land of the Zulu nation.
The proposal has found academic support from University of KwaZulu-Natal historian, Dr. Bume Lingidi. He frames the move as a necessary historical correction, not an erasure. “The term ‘Natal’ was imposed during colonial rule and no longer reflects the lived reality or heritage of the people of the province,” Dr. Lingidi stated. “Natal does not fit fittingly within the South African context… the name still possesses the colonial narrative.”
Dr. Lingidi pointed out that the current name was adopted in 1994 with the democratic merger of the KwaZulu homeland and the Natal province. He argues that removing “Natal” is a step taken by other African nations to shed colonial-era names and could set a precedent for other South African provinces with colonial names, such as the Eastern, Western, and Northern Cape.
The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) in the province has endorsed the King’s call, describing it as “long overdue and historically justified.”
However, the proposal faces opposition from some political parties and communities who warn that such a change could be divisive and erase aspects of the province’s shared history. Critics argue it may marginalize non-Zulu residents and obscure the complex, layered past of the region.
Dr. Lingidi has dismissed these concerns. “Renaming the province to KwaZulu does not mean that these people or other people who are non-Zulus are being chased away,” he said. He emphasized that history remains preserved in archives and that a name change does not alter accessible historical facts.
The historian also clarified that any official renaming would be neither swift nor unilateral. It would require extensive public consultation and formal approval through established government processes.
The debate now moves into the public sphere, centering on whether a name change would unify the province under a pre-colonial identity or fracture its diverse communities, and what it truly means to correct the historical record.