From Turkey to Türkiye, Czech Republic to Czechia, FYROM to North Macedonia, and potentially India to Bharat, countries changing names, or at least considering it, seems to be on trend these days.
While changing a country’s name is not a new process, the number of nations discussing a potential shift in nomenclature appears to be growing. While some experts say there is a nationalist overtone in cases such as Türkiye and India, for some other countries, it can be a simple matter of practicality or one of disconnecting from a colonial past.
When Dutch explorer Abel Tasman first spotted New Zealand’s western coasts in 1642, he did not go all the way around the country and called it Staten Landt, thinking it might be linked to a territory in South America with the same name. Later, a Dutch cartographer conferred the name “Nova Zeelandia” – the Latin equivalent of the Dutch “Nieuw Zeeland” – on the land discovered by Tasman.
As such, for many, the name New Zealand is a reminder of the country’s colonial legacy. Recently, New Zealanders have increasingly used the term Aotearoa, the indigenous Māori name, to distance themselves from the country’s colonial history, and a petition even prompted a parliamentary committee to explore a potential official name change. New Zealand isn’t alone.
Other countries are blunter in their approach. India displayed “Bharat”, the Hindu name for the country, on menus and nameplates at the G20 meeting it hosted in New Delhi last September, surprising many in attendance. Speculation soon followed about an imminent name change. Such a move would play right into Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s unique style of Hindu nationalism, and help create distance between the nation and its colonial past. For critics, however, reinforcing the country’s Hindu roots also means excluding other communities from its national brand. Still, Bharat is already a name recognised in India’s constitution and is a common namesake for the country.
Nationalistic overtones were also discussed when, in 2023, Turkey told the United Nations to use its Turkish-language name, Türkiye, in English as well. If part of the rationale behind the decision sounded a bit quirky – referring to the bird associated with the English-language name – many saw a move to distract attention from President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s poor economic and democratic record ahead of an election. The move also aligns with Erdogan’s nationalistic brand.
While not a country name, Ukraine’s push for the world to call its capital Kyiv instead of the Russian-spelled Kiev was also a show of nationalism that focused on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the latter’s effort to distance itself from its Soviet past.
Other recent nomenclature changes are more difficult to define. Take Czechia, for example. The country’s parliament voted in 2016 to officially recognise the shorter version of its name, but the world was slow to catch up, partly because the country’s very own prime minister disliked the change. The debate reached the country’s embassies and created a little chaos between those for and against the shift. Recently, however, the new name has picked up in popularity and is more commonly used globally.
In 2018, in a bid to access the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and to appease its southern neighbour, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, also known as FYROM, accepted a change to North Macedonia so Greece could finally claim its own Macedonian heritage.
Other countries may consider changing their names in the near future, as well. South Africa, a nation with a deep colonial and historical past, has been slowly renaming key locations. The rationale is that the names, mostly geographical descriptions, could better represent the country’s heritage. But for that to happen, politicians first need to see a benefit in doing so.
If not all name changes seem to have nationalistic overtones, it’s fair to say they all have some political ones. As many countries – whether with nationalistic leaders or not – are revisiting their histories, colonial pasts or other legacies, more seem interested in considering changing their name, a grandstanding decision that seems to have little political cost.
However, if the political cost seems small, there is a financial cost associated with renaming and rebranding a country: think about all the paperwork it requires, the signage that needs changing, and the potential marketing campaign to, well, let people know. Eswatini, for example, spent an estimated US$6 million to abandon the colonial appellation Swaziland, a not insignificant amount for a country with a US$4000 GDP per capita.
While India’s Bharat debate seems on ice for the moment, it could re-emerge soon as the country will vote in a general election in March and April. But while the grandstanding may appeal to the country’s leader, the political work to get it done seems a bit more arduous: it requires a constitutional amendment with a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament. So, the name is easier said than changed.
