ome forms of government that are appointed (now by the Prime Minister), and not elected. The Prime Ministers cabinet and the senate are two good examples. Those who are seen as "popular" or "important" are the people who are appointed to these positions. For instance, to a politician, to hold an election for the Prime Ministers cabinet or to appoint an average, working class individual to the senate would seem absurd. Though this would make things more democratic, it probably would not work. Nevertheless, a step in the democratic direction would be to make the senate elected, equal for each province, and as effective as the House of Commons. This is an issue clouded by many opinions and will be tackled later on in this paper. Therefore, if these elites do indeed control much of the power and money, and do perhaps have little concern of the less powerful individuals that make up the majority, why hasnt democracy fallen, with a great "Canadian Revolution"?! It is because, as Van Loon and Whittington describe, the "irony of democracy", in that only these elites are committed to the values of democracy. "Democratic values have survived because elites and not masses govern. Elites in America - leaders in government, industry, education, and civic affairs; the well educated, prestigiously employed, and politically active - give greater support to basic democratic values and "rules of the game" than do the masses. In short, it is the common individual and not the elite who is most likely to be swayed by anti-democratic ideology; and it is the elite and not the common individual who is the chief guardian of democratic values. This is likely equally true in Canada." (Van Loon, Whittington, 1981.) In a nutshell, the middle-class is geared to a democratic system because they wish to enjoy each individual freedom to which they are entitled. However, they take on attitudes that at times mirror socialism and communism due to frustration. John James G...
