The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
Thank you for this concise and interesting article. My only challenge is at the end you not you will persist in using 'Swaziland' till the global opinion forces you to do otherwise. This is a responsibility you should take on as the 'global opinion influencers' who can determine such a thing.
Whilst I agree in this case, the supposed confusion may not be that prevalent, as countries try to move on from colonial or just unfortunate names, as in this case, one should be supportive of such a shift if based on good reason. As opposed to the choice of, say, Tajiskistan's leader to force people to call him 'The Founder of Peace and National Unity, Leader of the Nation, President of the Republic of Tajikistan, His Excellency Emomali Rahmon'. Regardless, its a great opportunity for every future article referring to eSwatini to refer to this piece on why it is the case!
So, The Economist has decided not to use the country's new and official title of 'eSwatini'. That strikes me as being a tad bit racist and disrespectful. He is revered by the majority of his people and no doubt his government is in total agreement with the change.
But I suppose with Britain being at the centre of the origins of racism, it is to be expected. Make no mistake, the fiasco of 'Windrush', is and has been, only the tip of the racist ice-berg!
Czech Government does basically nothing, only registered the short name, no further information nor advertisement done. They are letting it catch up naturally. www.goczechia.com
Good to see some change in that country.
The Economist said, "Whether many people do in fact confuse Swaziland with Switzerland is unclear."
I bet you, Mr. Trump and hundreds of millions of people like him do not know the difference between Swaziland and Switzerland. They simply think Swaziland is Switzerland misspelled.
SwaziStan may have been better.
No, because the suffix - stan isn't valid in their language.
The 'king' certainly has his priorities right!
- Address the horrifying HIV infection rate of 25%, the terrible life expectancy of 56 & overwhelming poverty?
- Rename the country and get another few dozen wives
(The choice is simple)
eSwatini ? Useful to know. Anyone from eSwatini has thus a 1 in 4 chance of being infected with HIV.
I'm pretty sure you can't fix the HIV problem by signing a law that takes all of 5 minutes to do, and declare it solved.
The false equivalence in your comment is rather low of you.
Changing the country's name does not imply that other issues aren't being dealt with, and it didn't cost any significant amount of money or time.
And you are implying that changing a country's name would take all of "5 minutes"???
Do you have the slightest clue as to the time and effort it would take?
He's a monarch. He says from now on, we're called eSwatini, and any future official documentation produced will be made to bear the new name. No parliamentary and/or party in-fighting like for example the Brexit process is costing in the UK. I don't hear you ask the UK to pay more attention to the problems of the NHS instead. I realise I'm what I'm doing here is colloquially called "whataboutery", but I'm merely trying to illustrate to you that it seems perfectly sensible to assume that Brexit (which is totally unnecessary and uncalled for, and far more damaging than changing country name from Swaziland to eSwatini) isn't getting criticised for diverting resources from tackling the problems of the NHS, but Swaziland is getting called out for a merely symbolic gesture that has little if any economic or diplomatic downside.
Yea, some new stationery needs to be printed and signs on buildings updated, but it's a shamelessly false equivalence to imply that it takes the same amount of work to change the country's name as it will do to eradicate HIV, or that doing one mutually excludes the other.