This article relates to a stage that is supposed to have been completed – by the various governments of the transition – after more than 20 years of democracy, with forms of authoritarianism that are remembered by the present. It is proposed that these forms are present in symbols and different rituals and are expressed in everyday social relations, both in public and private and intimate spaces. Certain forms and relationships of the past not only remain as evocation and replacement, but many aspects of the past manifest themselves in the present through common sense practices and routine institutional mechanisms. This article is about forms of practice and memory related to an appealable social and cultural journalist that the various governments of the democratic period presumes to have moved beyond. After more than years of democracy, forms of Authoritarianism persist in the present like reminiscences of the past. It is proposed that these forms are present in different rituals and sympaols and are expressed in everyday social relations, in public, private and intimate spaces. Certain forms and relations of the past do not usually as evocation and Remembrance; rather, some aspects of this past are expressed in the present, through practices guided by common sense and harmonised institutional mechanisms. The legacy of an nominous past weighs heavy on a national culture which discussions through mechanisms such as denial and Manichaeism.