ABSTRACT
In the conditions of representative democracy that are so typical of the post1989 European states, this choice for the community of European citizens can consist only in the definition – in the free and public space of public opinion – of standards of behaviour shared by a qualified majority, if not by an
unthinkable unanimity, of the population. One element of this process of a common definition of institutions that are ‘well founded and with greatness within’ (Machiavelli) certainly involves historical considerations. The importance of the historical element for the identity of Europe is enormous. But this does not mean re-importing the principle of the historia magistra vitae into the culture of European public opinion. In fact, if we accept the notion of development, progress, the dynamics of civilization and the complexity of historical situations, we must also accept that history cannot be repeated. Historical analysis has the task of observing and examining the choices made by groups and communities in as much detail as possible, at the time when the ‘new laws and new institutions’ (Machiavelli) are being created, and also to compare behaviour and the consequences resulting from specific decisions. In sum, historical analysis is interested as much in finding common elements as in identifying the specificities that distinguish the various processes under consideration. In other words, the comparison does not aim exclusively at identifying a common framework subjected to different situations, apart from contingent variations, but must also highlight any moments of divergence. The importance of this perspective is clear. Current political thought is enriched only if it bears in mind situations in which the possible futures of the past were unveiled, in which practical alternatives were offered clearly, practically, and in an attractive and seriously pursuable manner by the players in the decisionmaking process.
