What Queen Elizabeth II’s 1947 Harrismith visit tells us about the rule of law

Eustace Davie is a director of the Free Market Foundation and a member of the Rule of Law Board of Advisers.

For interviews: 


The views expressed in the article are the author's and not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.

This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author.

The FMF is an independent, non-profit, public benefit organisation, created in 1975 by pro-free market business and civil society national bodies to work for
a non-racial, free and prosperous South Africa.
As a policy organisation it promotes sound economic policies and the principles
of good law. As a think tank it seeks and puts forward solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems: unemployment, poverty, growth, education, health care, electricity supply, and more. The FMF was instrumental in the post-apartheid negotiations and directly influenced the Constitutional Commission to include the property
rights clause: a critical cornerstone of economic freedom.

+27 11 884 0270 
PO Box 4056, Cramerview 2060

This article was first published by Business Day on
17 October 2022

What Queen Elizabeth II’s 1947 Harrismith visit tells us about the rule of law
Anyone who has doubts as to what “the rule of law” means, and what role the concept should play in our lives, would do well to read the book, “The Constitution and the Rule of Law: An Introduction” written by Martin van Staden and published by FMF Books in 2019. What we find is that there is an expressed longing for a clear and widely understood description or definition as to what the term means.
There is no doubt that if there were to be generally accepted rules of conduct, not only understood and adopted by everyone, but also abided by them in their daily lives, the world would be more congenial and safer. However, the happenings around us indicate that such a dream is unlikely to be fulfilled any time soon.
What proves to be most unfortunate is the behaviour of elected governments. With the elections coming up in South Africa in two years, we can expect a litany of promises as to how much better off we will be if we should elect so-and-so to Parliament. Such an undertaking is only likely to be true if Parliament were to consist of members who are voted in individually and not committed to support the policies devised by a specific political party unless that party were to be committed to upholding the rule of law.
The Constitution attempts to ensure that office holders will promote the general good and not be biased, for instance, in favour of those who vote them into office. Presidents swear oaths that they will “protect and promote the rights of all South Africans” and “do justice to all” and promise to “devote (themselves) to the well-being of the Republic and all of its people.” This is done knowing full well that it is not true.
The Rule of Law Board of Advisers of the Free Market Foundation have formulated what they consider to be imperatives of the rule of law:
  1. All law must be clear, predictable, accessible, not contradictory, and shall not have retrospective effect.
  2. All legislation that makes provision for discretionary powers, must also incorporate the objective criteria by which those powers are to be exercised. The enabling legislation must, in addition, stipulate the purpose or purposes for which the powers may be exercised.
  3. All law must apply the principle of equality before the law.
  4. All law must be applied fairly, impartially, and without fear, favour, or prejudice.
  5. The sole legitimate authority for making substantive law rests with the legislature, which authority shall not be delegated to any other entity.
  6. No law shall have the aim or the effect of circumventing the final authority of the courts.
  7. No one may be deprived of or have their property expropriated, except if done with due process for the public interest, and in exchange for compensation that is just, and market related.
  8. The law shall afford adequate protection of classical individual rights.
  9. All law must comply with the overriding principle of reasonableness, which comprehends rationality, proportionality, and effectiveness.
  10. The legislature and organs of state shall observe due process in the rational exercise of their authority.
The practical significance of the rule of law might be illustrated by a story.
The death of Queen Elizabeth II has resulted in what is described as a “rediscovery” of the 1947 Royal Family Visit to South Africa, including unexpected visits to small country towns such as Harrismith in the Free State, where a “rule of law”-related occurrence took place. The 12-year-old son of a famer from a mountain farm in the vicinity had decided to try and earn extra pocket money during holiday breaks from boarding school by picking and selling proteas from the protea bushes growing on the slopes of the mountainous parts of the farm. His father had agreed to sell the flowers to the Harrismith florist on his weekly visits to the town.
The first two trips were successful. The boy had cash in his savings box, and he could start working out what new sports gear he would be able to buy. Sadly, on the third trip to town his father returned with the unsold proteas.
The florist said that the head of the local police told him that a member of the local community had informed the police that the florist was breaking the law by trading in proteas, the national flower, and that he should stop buying and selling them. The young entrepreneur thought the intervention was wrong, arguing that he was careful not to damage the trees, there were many more flowers than he would ever be able to pick, and that he was working out how to plant more trees.
All to no avail, the law is the law, he was told.
When he returned for his next holiday to the farm he was told about the Royal Family Visit to Harrismith (the King, Queen, and their two daughters). They had been received in the Town Hall. And guess what? The Town Hall was decorated with beautiful proteas, which the Queen appreciated very much.
After a stunned silence, the boy asked the obvious question: Where did the proteas come from? They came from the same place, of course, as the small bunches of “illegal” proteas. Their farm in the mountains.
The chief of police had given permission when he was asked, if, in view of the Royal Visit, an exception could be made regarding the ban on the picking of proteas on the farm. How many proteas were required to decorate the Town Hall? The answer: a fully loaded truck, built to carry three-ton loads! Next question: Are there two kinds of law, one for kings and queens, another one for young boys? Embarrassed and contrite parents: very sorry son, you are right, we never should have done it!
If the rule of law had been recognised by the chief of police, it would never have happened. If he had done his job properly he would have found that the proteas in question were not protected and validly belonged to the farmer, who was entitled to sell them for the benefit of his son or to donate them to the organising committee to decorate the town hall. And, who knows, the boy could have become well-known for growing and supplying proteas to florists around the country.

Help FMF promote the rule of law, personal liberty, and economic freedom become an individual member / donor HERE ... become a corporate member / donor HERE