Europe, if it wants to survive itself, must rediscover the courage of its roots. Not out of nostalgia, but out of lucidity. Every great political construction is in fact born from a vision of man and power, not from a simple technical compromise.

The Federalism of Europe

In this sense, European federalism is not one institutional formula among others: it is the only architecture consistent with the history, culture and vocation of the continent. Federalism is the European answer to the eternal problem of power. Montesquieu understood this in De l’esprit des lois (1748), when he stated that ‘tout homme qui a du pouvoir est porté à en abuser’, and that only division and balancing can save freedom.

Polybius had already guessed this in the 2nd century BC, observing how Rome ‘s strength derived from the balance between monarchical, aristocratic and popular elements. Europe has never really believed in the absolute state: it has tolerated it, sometimes suffered it, often fought it. The 20th century was the most dramatic proof of this.

Shared sovereignty after the fall of states

Between 1914 and 1945 , the continent experienced the suicide of absolute sovereignty: dissolved empires, armed nationalisms, totalising ideologies. After Auschwitz and Stalingrad, after Hiroshima and the gulags, the idea that the state could embody a will superior to man definitively collapsed. Out of this fracture, a united Europe was born, and with it the – still unfulfilled – intuition of a shared sovereignty.

Altiero Spinelli, confined to Ventotene in 1941, did not think of a centralised super-state, but of a federation capable of preventing the return of European civil war. His project did not aim to wipe out nations, but to take away from them what had historically made them dangerous: the monopoly of force and ultimate decision-making.

In this sense, federalism is not a renunciation, but a maturing of sovereignty. If Europe is to become federal, then it must also question what it wants to be. And here emerges a question that is both symbolic and political: the capital. Not for geographical vanity, but for historical identity.

Rome capital of Europe

Rome, in this framework, does not represent one nation among others, but a common origin. Rome is the city where Europe learned to think of law as a universal language. It was here, between the 1st century B.C. and the 3rd century A.D., that the legal edifice was formed that still structures our codes today: the distinction between ius publicum and ius privatum, the centrality of the person, the certainty of the norm.

Rome did not rule with legions alone. It ruled with citizenship, with municipalities, with the gradual integration of peoples. Caracalla’s edict of 212, which extended Roman citizenship to all freemen in the empire, was not an act of abstract generosity, but a political choice of inclusion. An empire that did not annul differences, but held them together under a common law. In this sense, Rome was a primitive – but surprisingly modern – form of federalism.

Also on a cultural and spiritual level, Rome gave Europe a dimension beyond power. Here Christianity affirms that authority is not absolute, that there is a sphere of conscience removed from political command. From Augustine to Thomas Aquinas, the idea takes shape that the law, to be just, must respect the dignity of the person. It is a principle that spans the centuries and re-emerges in the declarations of rights, in the French Revolution, and in the constitutions after World War II. It is no coincidence that the great seasons of European freedom always originate in pluralistic contexts: the Italian cities of the Renaissance, the United Provinces in the 17th century, the England of the Glorious Revolution.

Where power is diffused, creativity flourishes. Where it is concentrated, history stiffens.

Today, Europe risks a new form of alienation: no longer violent oppression, but distance. Citizens perceive institutions as distant, impersonal, incapable of speaking a common language. Federalism can mend this fracture, restoring meaning and responsibility to the different levels of government. But for this to happen, we also need a centre that is not merely administrative, but symbolic.

Rome can play this role precisely because it does not embody the hegemony of a modern state. It is a capital that carries with it the memory of the limit of power, the durability of institutions, and the fragility of human constructions. As Machiavelli wrote in his Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, Rome was great because it knew how to change without denying itself. A federal Europe with its capital in Rome would be the recognition that European unity does not come from the cancellation of differences, but from their orderly composition.

It would be a powerful message at a time of bewilderment: Europe is not just an economic project, but a political civilisation based on law, freedom and the limitation of power. The European future, if it is to be stable, must be built on this tradition.

And Rome, more than any other city, is its natural guardian.

Read also:

• “Ernesto Nathan, The European who led Rome”, F.Rigonat- L’Europeista