Your ideas about sovereignty, legitimacy and foreignity were exciting reading. It brought to mind a definition of the political right and left I once read, that the left views human nature as perfectable and the right views human nature as a given. Given these definitions, your stance seems implicitly leftist to me, because it "sees through" the delegation of power to the elite, seeing it as inherently corrupt. I see this corruption too, but the way you characterize it seems like the benchmark is "corruption in excess of that which would exist if people were perfect." Using this benchmark yields the conclusion that the foreignity is a farcical spectacle. I think we should, through the accountability you mention, push for this perfection. But I think a potentially better benchmark is "corruption in excess of what we would expect from decent reasonable people." In short, I'd be very interested in how you might characterize and assess the foreignity against the second benchmark so we can score instances of foreignity on a spectrum or by a rubric. In other words, opening up the pragmatic question "in what instances does the system work (versus the system can never really work)?"