To the extent that the elites made President Trump's run possible, I believe it was because they believed him to be the most defeatable Republican competition for Mrs. Clinton. The media loved reporting on him, because it was fun. Meanwhile, the Republican Party relied too much on primaries and not enough on caucuses, and awarded delegates based on plurality rather than having runoffs. As it turned out, while he was the most-defeatable opposition for Mrs. Clinton she wasn't able to actually defeat him.
As for Brexit, the whole reason it was on the ballot was that Mr. Cameron believed that he could get a clear vote of confidence on the U.K.'s E.U. membership. This is a pretty historic instance of hubris: had he simply asked for a two-thirds vote, he'd have won. But he went with a simple majority, and that defeated him.
Brexit was a false choice foisted upon the people by wealthy special interest groups that used falsehoods[0][1] and illegal tactics[2] to mislead the people [3][4] into voting for something they didn't fully understand [5]
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/infact/brexit-second-referendu...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-bre...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-ca...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2018/05/30/615388562/fishermen-say-they-...
[4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-voter...
[5] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/48...
So if anything, Trump's election is a point in favor of more democracy, not less.
Think of the many contemporary political issues on which the elites refuse to provide such a choice and insist on governing as they please.
This is the same as when the media (the voice of the same elites) blame lack of political progress (on for example climate change) on certain demographics of poor people. As if the elites care about what these poor people think. Since when did the elites lend an ear to these people to consult on policy?
They blame it on democracy when it is anything but.