When the Brexit result came through, the one thing that stood out was that no-one could say they represented most of the country. 52:48 hardly entitles anyone to say they represent everyone. The same applies in the US (who would willingly vote for Trump or Clinton?) - and also in NZ. Our government can only just get the numbers for some legislation and even had to apply a veto to stop a bill supported by everyone else.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Churchill).

Lincoln once said "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." The problem is the system we know today as democracy bares little resemblance to this.

Recent turmoil (e.g. Brexit, Trump vs Clinton) gives me some hope that maybe - just maybe - we can expect to see an improvement. I also found many years ago that expecting unanimity is pointless. A group I was part of discussed exactly what we could agree on. Eventually I said we could only agree we each had the right to follow our particular preference within our choice. Even that met with a strong put down. Some felt we didn't have a right on the issues. It was simply a facility granted by a benevolent government.

So what would I like to see happen?

For a start power has to return to the people - which means it has to be taken from the political parties. I watched the 2006 UK series "The Amazing Mrs Pritchard" and before that the 1970 Peter Cook film "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer". I also believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I don't expect any system to be perfect. But if it is to restore some real democracy, it has to minimise the possibility of real power being in the hands of a few who can then be induced to do things that are not in the interests of the people. And by that I mean the people of the nation - not of the world.

One of the things that permeates the system is the effect of special interest and lobby groups. Now we need people to have free access to politicians. But perhaps when meetings are held with cabinet ministers, perhaps a shadow minister should also be present. Of course it's possible that there are issues that need absolute secrecy - but perhaps the Official Secrets Act could apply to all politicians (if it doesn't already). But why do our representatives need to be hidden.

There's also the question of a majority. Is 50.1% adequate for every situation? Brexit is a clear example saying yes - even though it was a slim majority, more people wanted out than in - any other option would have been wrong. But 48% still wanted to say in. Could there have been a different issue voted on? Personally I doubt it. There had already been lengthy debate between Britain and the EU.

But there are other examples where a 50.1% vote could have yielded sub-optimal outcomes. Or a political agreement flies in the face of most citizen's wishes (as in the TPPA where loss of sovereignty echoes Brexit). That doesn't mean that the majority is always right. But how else are we to decide in today's world?

Of course another issue is the media, coupled with people's mindsets. Fortunately today (in the West) we have a range of sources of information. We know that particular media is oriented to particular thinking - and can usually find balance to the views we hear. Sadly most people aren't interested enough in most issues to take the time and effort to be well informed. Michael Rimmer (Peter Cook) knew that and gave the people so much input on every option that when he asked if Britain should appoint him as dictator (I can't remember the term he used) he received an overwhelming Yes!

IF (and that's a big if) we could keep politicians and lobbyists out of the process, then the "silent majority" could achieve agreement on a few core issues - and then leave the rest to the politicians. Sadly getting to the core that we could agree on seems so remote - partly because we've become used to everyone being for against ideas simple because they are left or right ideas. The only way we're going to the stage where we can even think about a constitutional type of agreement is if we learn to listen to each other. As long as we keep attacking the opposition rather than the idea we're no better than our politicians.

So what the issues we might want to agree on?

Well this nation is founded on an agreement that has been badly ignored. Some feel the Treaty settlements address this - but I see them as our (English) framework - primarily money - and ignoring other issues. Again there are no easy solutions - but any solution has to involve genuine listening.

Once we've established a more meaningful relationship between Maori and English, we can then look at how our multi racial reality should work. Immigants expect (and should have) the same freedoms to be themselves - but having seen some of the atrocities outside on NZ, and the way some minorities grow and become more vocal in demanding we change to fit them, it is understandable that there is apprehension today. Both sides make some valid points - but they aren't listening to each other - which gets no-one any better. Some groups take advantage of fear to behave intolerantly - but most people are not like that. How we protect groups from others is again a delicate and long piece of string.

Then there's the role of the state versus the individual. I personally support maximum freedom for the individual. But the legacy of decades of much state involvement in almost everything has seen a focus on the individual without a corresponding responsibility on society. This is most obvious for example in health, welfare and education. So there is a whole mindset of "rights" which means this could not easily be changed overnight. On the other hand, I certainly don't want the US system which leaves large pockets of society with inadequate heath care.

Of course there's also the free market to consider. By and large the free market is the best mechanism for commercial services. But there are cases where it does not work well. These include monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies etc where the market has no real influence on the success or failure of the business. There are also cases where we agree to provide or support a service that is not economically viable.

The traditional three arms of government to be considered - political, administrative and legal. That seems a reasonable breakdown - but we've seen a creeping influence of particularly the political over the administrative. This includes political appointees both to internal and to diplomatic positions. Being a big fan of Yes Minister I don't want to see our civil service follow that - but there have to be better alternatives. And while we're at it, we need to define the roles of the armed services and police and emergency services.

Doubtless there are more issues that should be decided - but interestingly the flag and the anthem aren't two of them. If we had a good attempt at defining ourselves, these could flow - far more easily than at present.