Bokkieweek is a right-wing sports event for schoolchildren that was held in South Africa last week. Its origins are in a protest movement against the deracialisation of sport in the 1980s. Bokkieweek is held under the auspices of Afrikaner Volkseie Sport (AVS), a non-profit organisation committed to the promotion of “volkseie” (“a people’s own”) sport.

Daan Nolte was one of the founders of AVS in the mid-1980s and said one of the reasons for its establishment was “there will come a time where my people’s [Afrikaners’] children will not get any sporting opportunities”.

The tournament involves rugby, hockey, and netball, and draws teams from across most of the country, with sporting regions constituted broadly according to the sporting regions that existed at the time of its establishment. For example, it retains a Stellaland region, whose historical namesake, the Stellaland Rugby Union, was dissolved in 1995.

Bokkieweek used colours and symbolism reminiscent of South Africa’s Springboks – now and historically – but is not affiliated to the South African Rugby Union.

It has drawn criticism for being exclusionary.

The Limpopo Department of Education said that the hosting school – Hoërskool Hans Strijdom – was not involved in the substance of the tournament, and that leasing facilities was an important means of raising funds. More than half the learners at the school are exempt from paying fees, and so this income is important to its sustainability.

Events of this nature invite debate around the permissibility of discrimination.

AVS frames its existence in cultural terms. Its charter emphasises the Protestant, Christian character of the organisation and the events it organises. It says that it promotes a “kultuurgebonde sportbedeling” (culturally based sport system) in which teams are chosen on merit, and that it has the right to do this through Section 18 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association.

Post-apartheid South Africa has had numerous examples of institutions founded on a discriminatory premise. These include organisations such as the Black Management Forum, the Association for The Advancement of Black Accountants of South Africa, the Black Lawyers Association, the Native Club, the Forum of Black Journalists, and the Black Business Council. Some of these have received direct or implicit support from the government.

South Africa’s Constitution does not provide for a blanket prohibition of discrimination, only for “unfair” discrimination. The legal question is whether any group – the AVS or any other – can claim justification for restricting access.

Cultural organisations would certainly seem to meet these criteria. Again, South Africa can point to numerous groups that represent minorities or sectarian interests. These include the Muslim Judicial Council, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, the South African Hindu Maha Sabha, as well as churches and even traditional authorities, whose powers are largely confined to people who share a common cultural experience.

In practice, South Africa’s state institutions and elite culture have tended to accept “fair” discrimination when presented as advancing the interests of “disadvantaged” groups and to show particular sensitivities about discrimination when it is perceived to be exercised by groups that are believed to possess inherent “privilege”. This is the basic ideological foundation of South Africa’s system of racial preferences. It also underpins the disproportionate negative attention given to the exceedingly small number of Afrikaans-language schools or university study options (even while most educational institutions are dysfunctional).

The South African Human Rights Commission has stated that it adopts different standards when evaluating alleged violations committed by different groups of people, to account for historical context.

Sport in South Africa is also deeply political. Sports bodies have come under significant pressure to meet racial targets, and in recent years also requirements for players to make overtly political statements. The South African Rugby Union, for example, disinvited an Israeli team from a tournament in 2023. Cricket South Africa (although its sporting code is not represented in Bokkieweek), has demanded that players “take the knee”, and effectively demoted David Teeger (who is Jewish) from his captaincy of the Under-19 national cricket team for his support of Israel.

The Common Sense spoke to Terence Corrigan of the South African Institute of Race Relations about the matter. Corrigan, who has written extensively on civic freedoms and civil society, commented that it was “hard to see why there was any excitement about a private sports contest, especially an amateur one.”

He said that a free society had to accept that people could associate in any way they wished, even if this was unsettling to others. “Cultural groups will always in some way draw a distinction between themselves and others,” he said. “This is the nature of culture and pluralism. I don’t think a free society can prevent this, or should try. After all, South Africa accepts this in plenty of other contexts.”

“Is this because it is an Afrikaner event?” he asked. “I don’t think we can rule this out. The reporting on this matter has tried to make apartheid comparisons. It seems to me that this is a hazardous basis to pass judgement. If we condemn behaviour not out of principle but because we don’t like the people or the ideology doing it, we abandon the logic of rights and rules; it becomes all about the politics of the prevailing sentiment. It’s a bit like what I’ve been saying recently about the connection between going after migrants and going after, say, farmers. These things jump borders. Likewise, if we pour indignation on an Afrikaner event, but not at anything else arranged around a specific group, well, don’t be surprised when the worm turns a bit later, and some other group comes under fire. What argument will you make then, ‘No, no, these are the people we like’? We stand to lose a lot like this.”

Corrigan said that he thought there were entirely legitimate questions about the advisability of holding events such as Bokkieweek. “These groups have the good right, moral and legal, to hold something like this,” he said, “but South Africa is a diverse society. The upcoming generation needs to be able to navigate this reality. I don’t think that exclusive interactions like Bokkieweek are conducive to doing so. I also fear that cultural groups (or parts of cultural groups) that become too insular can cut themselves off the from the understanding, friendship, and goodwill of others.”

Marius Roodt, deputy editor at The Common Sense, said that the sensationalised media focus on Bokkieweek creates a misleading impression at odds with the reality how most white Afrikaners experience school in South Africa.

“Bokkieweek is a fringe event. Arguably the biggest sporting event on the Afrikaans schools sports calendar is the Paul Roos and Paarl Gim annual rugby derby, with more than 20 000 people in attendance. The match is also televised, showing the broad interest in the game. And the match is not only played by white Afrikaners, there will be English-speakers, coloured players, and black players in both sides. People from all backgrounds interact with each other at the match, whether as spectators or players, and there is no hint of exclusion.”

Roodt said: “Bokkieweek is a sideshow, Paarl Gim and Paul Roos is a far better example of where school sport is in South Africa… Oom Daan [Nolte, a founder of AVS, the organiser of Bokkieweek], would likely have been amazed to see that in the same week that his tournament took place, the Springboks fielded an all-Afrikaner starting forward pack for the Test against Scotland this weekend out of a team where roughly half the players were Afrikaans.”