Future generations will be affected by political decisions of today, but they do not have a voice in their making. Recognizing that short-termist perspectives shape political decision-making, several democracies created institutional guardians designed to represent the interests of future generations in present-day decision-making, facilitating a long-term view across policy areas. In doing so, they may help to mitigate democratic myopia. However, some scholars are very sceptical of the feasibility and viability of such institutional innovations, given the ubiquitous short-termists pressures in politics. To analyze their feasibility and viability claims conceptually and empirically, this study systematically compares the design features (i.e. political instruments, access to the policy process and to branches of government, legal basis, organizational structure and resources) and the conditions of institutionalization of eight institutional guardians of future generations, four of which did not survive and were dismantled. Although each case is unique, it can be concluded that it is feasible to institutionally represent future generations even under detrimental external conditions. However, guardians that can not only bark but also bite live dangerously. Guardians are most viable when they are designed to be neither too strong nor too weak, and when they have a balanced interdependence with political decision-makers.