Very true. Democracy now doesn't even mean democracy--i.e. rule by the people--but simply is used to mean "good". This is very silly.Yes, as @JFWR said, it's more of an aristocracy with the senate. I was loosely using oligarchy to refer to a 'rule by few,' whether chosen on the basis of nobility, wealth, intellect, etc. At the same time, we do have something of an aristocratic class in Canada - pretty much the same as the UK.
I suppose I just see a real democracy as having more of a voice for citizens as a whole; arguably there are no real democracies around today, since Athenian democracy was much more limited in terms of who counted as a citizen, and even then there was concern over mob-style populism in the city-states. Think of what Plato would say about modern democracies, where anyone with a pulse can vote.
The trouble is that nowadays 'democracy' has no meaning, politically. It's a buzzword people throw around to mean 'good,' and it's opposite is something like 'fascism,' which is 'bad.' Very few people know what these things even are. Even fewer know what a state is, or why some monarchies offer more freedoms than some democracies, etc.
That being said, even Canada which -does- have elements of monarchy and aristocracy to an extent the US does not, is still meaningfully democratic in a large portion of its governance. In fact, this is something close to the political ideal in many older political philosophers, who advocate for this balance of monarchy-aristocracy-democracy.
I definitely don't think it is a bad thing that a society has a more limited role for democracy inherently. It can be bad, but it isn't NECESSARILY bad.