In an era characterized by post-hegemonic, transideological and alarmist claims, many necessary debates about key concepts such as democracy, citizenship and human rights have ceased to advance from mediatic and anti-political language to a flexible and receptive language that focuses on constructive and integrative proposals for change. Dysfunctional governments cannot be explained by the dissolution of relational and representational practices that navigate between institutional and instituted imaginary, between politics and society. Neither can the contradictory character of authoritarianisms, totalitarianisms and populisms be apprehended through schematic categories. The sociopolitical incidence of a process institutionalizes knowledge, naturalizes behaviors, ensures a ‘genetic brand’ that does not have much to do with rigid nomenclatures, but rather with expressions that cross causalities, imaginary, mentality and social representations.