This article analyzes the recent constitutional turmoil in Canada by a
rguing that disenchantment with political institutions can be traced t
o confusion and indecision about the kind of democratic regime Canadia
ns want. Using the work of Johan Olsen and James March, the author out
lines two models of democratic political institutions, both centred on
the concept of popular sovereignty but each offering its own version
of how popular rule is to be achieved and legitimated. While the Canad
ian state was originally established on ''integrative'' principles and
processes, recent years witnesses the rise of ''aggregative'' ideals.
This development has had a profound effect on constitutional politics
as well as on ''normal'' politics. The result is that Canadians now h
ave a different democracy than the one they inherited from their Briti
sh forebears, one with its own capacity to generate stalemate and disa
ppointment.