As usual Terence Blake hit it.
I can’t believe Agamben would really go to this length explaining his opinion after opinion of the same opinion that’s all obviously inside a bubble. He can’t see a clear demarcation between a democray that’s existing or being practiced (in Western or non-Western environments) versus his idea of a democracy that is absolutely hijacked by state powers. A Foucauldian suspicion toward the state which certainly can exist outside of the principle of sovereignty (which underlies its determination) in case of ‘exception’ scenarios, does not give license to view democracy in this way and all the time. And even if one views the state as an impersonal power, whose derivation is no less than life itself, its immanent way of organizing ‘differences’ and overdetermining differences for the drive to life to continue, the derivation of absolute impersonalism is excessive. Life does not behave like that.