The left may be delighted, but McAvoy and the right have had something of a moral victory in accusing activists of failing the 'democracy test'. Firstly, McAvoy and his fellow bureaucrats have a nerve suggesting that they are on the side of the democratic angels. Their desire to submit all conference decisions to a postal ballot of the whole membership reduces democracy to the marking of an x.
Full democracy requires the greatest possible discussion and debate.
Collective consideration of the pros and cons of different issues at conferences, branch meetings and geographical area discussions has the potential for allowing informed decision-making. However, my heart sank when I heard the left arguing so passionately to defend the right of self-styled activists to make decisions on behalf of the members. The left's rejection of approaching the rank and file membership of the union indicates their weakness, a weakness McAvoy and the so-called moderates have been keen to exploit. Their claims that NUT conference is representative are at best gullible, but at worst are a dishonest attempt to cloak their lack of support behind a democratic sheen. It is important to place this discussion into the broader context of the role of the trade union movement in the 1990s.