So, what? It doesn't cancel the fact that the majority controls who gets the executive power and those who want the power compete for it. If the majority makes an uninformed decision, or bad decision, or brain-washed decision it's still a democracy. Democracy does not ensure the best decisions or the worst decisions. The only requirement is that the election results are not falsified to a large extent.
A word about the "people's power". Think about it this way: say you have a monarchy, i.e. the executive and the judicial power belongs to the king. Does that mean it's the king's power? In reality, it's not - the king rules the state as long as he has the support of the elite and he's working hard to secure that support. Whoever can do it the best (among the heirs and the successors), wins the throne. So, to some extent you can say that
regardless of the government form, a certain part of the elite would always rule the country. So, does monarchy exist or ever existed?
The power of the government cannot exceed the sum of the power of its parts. Is that "elite power" is good or bad, it's another matter. Some people think that you can't really give the power to the people (=to the crowd) as that would have the most devastating results, so the crowd needs to controlled by those who realize the consequences of the decisions (=the elite). That is because the crowd so far was unable to demonstrate the intelligent behavior. The elite would translate their intelligent behavior into the unintelligent slogans used by the crowd, like: "
From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need".