Well, Rome was never a republic. The Senate was made up of men who served when they felt it was time for them to serve, and they were from about 35 families. Elected offices were for the hoi-polloi, and had little power. The permanent chief executive arose because Rome had conquered non-Roman citizens, and ruled from one end of the Med to the other, and from the Rhine to the margin of the Sahara. And the Senatorial families were akin to mafia crime families, lawless and corrupt.
Boy, that sure sounds familiar!
“Well, Rome was never a republic.”
I see. They invented the term, “res publica”, (which means ‘public affairs’) but were never one.
It’ s not that they were not organized to tend to their public affairs, (a republic) it’s that over time the way we take care of public affairs has changed.
Even today the term republic has different meanings. Our republic is quite different than an Islamic Republic such as Iran.
It was dominated by the wealthy so by Greek standards it was more of an oligarchy. But Polybius in the 2nd century B.C. has a hard time pigeonholing the Roman system and calls it a mixed constitution because it was a combination of oligarchical, democratic, and monarchical elements. The people voted for the magistrates (who became members of the Senate) but the voting in the Centuriate Assembly (comprising 193 "centuries") was heavily weighted in favor of the wealthiest citizens, so the election was usually decided before the poorer citizens got to vote. (Once a candidate had a majority of the possible 193 votes, the voting stopped, just like how the World Series ends once one team has won 4 games).
Certainly it was true that during the Republic a small number of noble families dominated the consulship--it was rare for a "new man" with no consular ancestors to be elected.