July 14th marked the 35th anniversary of the final abolition of the death penalty in Canada and July 9th marked the 218th anniversary of the passing of the Act Against Slavery in Upper Canada- the first anti-slavery legislation passed in the British Empire. These two pieces of legislation, passed some 180 years apart are absolutely something to take pride in as Canadians. I also think that both of these events also highlight a critical aspect of governance that seems to be overlooked in recent debates - change does not come all at once in a democratic system. Rather change occurs slowly over time, with compromise and accommodation.
The Act Against Slavery really was a landmark piece of legislation in a sleepy little outpost of the British Empire. In 1793 Upper Canada was almost entirely unpopulated and was rightfully considered the ugly stepsister to the older, and far more prosperous, Lower Canada. Regardless, the newly appointed Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe took to the new colony with a zeal that most aristocratic Englishmen wouldn't. He was also an ardent abolitionist who believed that slavery was a crime against God. One of his first acts as Lieutenant-Governor was to introduce anti-slavery legislation in his new colony. What should not be forgotten though is that the Act did not ban slavery outright. In order to get his Act passed through the Legislative Council, many of whom were slaveowners themselves, a compromise had to be reached. So the Act stated that while all existed slaves in the colony would remain so until death, no new slaves could be brought into the colony and any child born of slaves were to become free at the age of 25. As it happened, any remaining slaves were granted their outright freedom in 1833 when the British Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act.
Similarly, the end of capital punishment in Canada did not happen all at once. It also happened in fits and starts culminating in that historic vote in 1976. Here's how CBC radio reported it as it happened. (By the way, if you have a few hours to kill, I strongly recommend poking around the CBC archives - it's fantastic). Between 1954 and 1963 Private Members Bills calling for the abolition of capital punishment were introduced in Parliament annually and while they were never passed, other important distinctions were. In 1961 murder was divided into two categories - capital and non-capital. Only capital murders - those deemed deliberate, or having occurred during violent crimes, or the murder of police officers and prison guards - carried the penalty of death. In 1967, under then Minister of Justice Pierre Trudeau, a 5 year moratorium was placed on the death penalty (except of course in the case of police officers and prison guards). The final vote that we celebrate, in 1976 was actually the final removal of the police officer/prison guard stipulation (military executions - in cases of treason for example - remained on the books, but never used until 1988). Even after all this incrementalism, the vote was exceptionally close - 130-124. Had an outright ban on capital punishment been introduced in Parliament a decade earlier, it would've been extremely unlikely to pass.
Thinking about these two pieces of legislation got me thinking about the concept of the Overton Window. The Overton Window is a political theory which holds that politicians can only enact legislation on policies that fit within a window that the public finds acceptable. It is the duty of the reformer to push what is deemed publicly acceptable over to their side and the duty of the opposing politician to convince the public that such a shift is unacceptable.
Here's a diagram of the Overton Window.
In other words, politics is all about making a new idea which is first thought of as unthinkable into a desired idea that is considered sensible.
I think the two examples I gave are excellent ones to show how an idea which initially seemed beyond the pale eventually became seen as almost common sense. The trick to me seems that in order to convince people that your position is correct, you first need to introduce a lesser piece of legislation from which you can build upon. As the public gets used to your watered down position, building upon that initial legislation becomes easier and easier.*
*I think a crucial distinction should be made, that it is far more likely for you to convince the public of a policy option that is in keeping with the broadly liberalizing trend of the latter 20th/early 21st Centuries. One reason why anti-gay marriage initiatives from 2004 haven't been built upon is that they are, for lack of a better term, on the wrong side of history.
A classic American example of this is the Social Security Act introduced in FDR's New Deal. What is now seen as a central plank in the social safety net (to mangle metaphors) initially applied to a very limited group of people. As Paul Begala noted:
"It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy. FDR's Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn't work, you got nothing from Social Security."
It had to be, even with the sweeping reforms FDR instituted, he still had to get it through Congress - who were not going to give him everything he wanted. However, in time, Social Security became a cornerstone of American public life, and even with a strengthened mandate in 2004, George W Bush was unable to make even minor headway in his plan to privatize it.
The point is (at long last :) that politics is all about the Art of the Possible. It is about compromise with those you may (probably) do not agree with/find yourself diametrically opposed. There seems to be a line of thinking in contemporary politics that if you don't get everything that you want right away, then you've somehow lost the battle, and capitulated to your enemy. That taking a watered down version of your bill that can nonetheless be built upon is a sign of weakness or failure. I personally think nothing can be further from the truth. These two Canadian and one American examples should show that actual change comes in increments, and as long as your end goal falls within an Overton Window that the public will eventually accept, then you'll reach your goal.
It just takes some time is all.
