Perhaps because of the period of Foucault writing this book, where there were many waves of

successive wars, revolutions and decolonisation. There was also the spread of an even more liberal
form of democracy. I feel the issues of sovereignty and delinearisation of power has a lot to do with
true democracy. However, that is something that sometimes may be argued to become anarchy, and
hence in modern democracies there must always be some form of institutionalised power.

This power vested in the institutions that we choose to discipline us may not proclaim sovereignty,
but are developed to basically maintain power in themselves. Hence, can it be said that sovereignty
in the old days is not very different from the institutionalised power of today? In the past,
sovereignty had much to do with external threats, however in todays context there are few external
threats. Hence if we apply sovereignty to our modern institutions we can find a strikingly similar
method of domination and possibly deduce that sovereignty has simply taken on a different form to
work in conjunction with the delinearisation of power.