It is important to distinguish the Machiavellianism from the Machiavellian commonwealth. The first is based on the believe that all available means are justifiable to ascend and preserve power, yet imoral; while the other consistes on the true essence of Nicolà Machiavelli s thought: apply the leassons let by the ancient to modern times, specially about the so called republicana liberty. It makes all sense if we analyse the renaissance as the moment of substituition of the passive life, marked by purê spiritual reflexion and divine contemplation, for the active life that the man adopts a creative active before the world, not just in the arts as the political instituitions as well. This is the practice of the viver civiles in which all the forms of social organization are shaped by the own community. in order to improve the social life. This concept is in the own essence of the civic humanism that forged all the period of the Renaissance. It is under this perspective that we should interpret all the Machiavellian work. The príncipe novo is just the alegorical form of the popular statecraft that would later be named constituitional power, but it was already present in the renascence dynamic. Accorduing to the florentina secretary, this príncipe novo would necessarily assume the shape of an Oxymoron, figure of speech in which two parts of opposite nature contradictorily unite in a harmonious whole. Here, he refers to the eternal dispute among the small and the big when operete inside a framework tend tocooperate aproving useful laws for the whole civil society. This process consists in the continuos foundation and caracterizes the own essence of the constitucional power which always have an opened nature. That is the way we should read the references to the mixed government all along the machiavellian works. The Oxymoron figure exculpes any association of the machiavellian Thoughr to the populista phenomenom, at least if we consider the definition given by Ernesto Laclau in his Razão Populista. The populism is caracterized by the ascention of a particularity (plebe) and it s consolidation as totality (populus), while Machiavelli proposed the cooperation yet forced between two antagonical Poles with the preservativos of their respectiva social functions. Nevetheless, we might identify in the concept of virtù, enough conceptual vaporousness to classify it as a flowing significant. It explains the easiness with the most diverse ideologia corrents apropriated from the Machiavellian Legacy. ironically, Machiavelli seemed to have opened the populism pandora box, yet unwittingly.