At government level, our current democracy involves seats in Parliament roughly in proportion to the population, and Māori seats which involve those who have Māori ancestry and choose to express it by being on the Māori roll.
This has those who define themselves as Māori having a say in our Parliament in proportion to their numbers in the community. This expresses in some way a sharing of power. Parliament therefore expresses a version of democracy along the lines of each grown up person having a vote.
If we attempt to interpret the Treaty as being an equal partnership arrangement, we would have half of those in Parliament chosen by Māori and half by the rest of us. That would produce a two-tier arrangement.
It is difficult to imagine how we could call this democracy in the way we currently understand a democracy.
Rather than being merely an interpretation of the Treaty, we have already accepted it would be a major change. It would require serious input by all of us.
Another alternative being discussed as an interpretation of the Treaty would be a separate Māori Parliament, or a Māori Commission, or an upper House with half Māori and half the rest of us.
If we were to choose this option, we would also be choosing to give a disproportionate power to a minority of our voters. If those chosen for the Māori Parliament, commission or upper House were appointed rather than democratically chosen, it would water down the one-person, one-vote principle even more.
And then we could look at co-governance as the model which most aligns with some current interpretations of the Treaty. This looks like a suitable option for an organisation which runs by consensus.
However, for a government to have any real democracy, someone has to be actually in charge.
This is being fudged by the idea that around the table a consensus will prevail, but we cannot run a democracy by consensus. At some point the representatives of the people must be expressed and decisions must be made by the representatives of the majority. When there is deadlock, there has to be a mechanism for making a decision.
We can acknowledge the role of Māori around natural resources by allowing Māori to require payment for the use of the resources. While this is currently something our government accepts, we are not all necessarily on board with this.
We may be better served by being more transparent about which natural resources can be "taxed" in this way, but this practice does work within a democratic framework.
The problem of attempting to have Parliament working to give up the right to be in charge of the resources which are belonging to the people is problematic, however, when the resources are being allocated along racial lines.
While this may look like a version of by Māori for Māori, it gives Māori no true power. In the end, Parliament gets to allocate the money and are in charge of everything. It can starve any organisation it funds so that the organisation cannot carry out its mission.
At local body level we can provide the version of democracy we have nationally, with Māori seats according to the Māori roll.
If we are to do this, we need to change the rules around local body councillors who are currently obliged to think of the interests of all of the people in the area covered by the council.
This would be a fundamental change and maybe we want councils to behave like central government, but we should think about if this change would be a helpful move.
What is not contributing to democracy is having unelected councillors making decisions, be they youth councillors or people appointed by local tangata whenua.
Democracy is eroded when there are different and unaccountable ways of appearing at the decision-making table.
Act New Zealand leader David Seymour has attempted to have the people clarify through a referendum how they see a workable way of interpreting the Treaty. He has suggested that we retain a democracy in New Zealand.
The wording he has proposed may not be to the liking of the people, but at least he has tried to find a way to honour what he sees as the Treaty in a way which also honours democracy.
Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich has submitted that the Bill should be rejected, for reasons which were unclear but which provided no help regarding how democracy fits with his plea. Other politicians are not giving any reasons for their positions either.
The leader of the coalition has rejected the possibility of a referendum to establish what the majority understands the Treaty to mean.
Whatever the Treaty means, we are likely to agree it should be something which supports democracy.
A recent Curia poll had those voters who support the Treaty Principles Bill outstripping the others two to one, despite the unrelenting media campaign supporting rejection.
The politicians may yet find out what living in a democracy does mean currently in New Zealand.
• Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
