I agree with the sentiments of Cal on the special and long commands. As Rome grew in the last century BC, the Romans gave little thought as to the modifications needed to their systems and forms of government. Stuck in tradition, they suffered from an outdated military organization and overly centralized form of governance. The one-year terms of office were well in intention as a supplemental system of checks and balances, but as the empire grew, it was no longer as functional to deal with opponents far reaching the Italian Peninsula.

Offhand, I can think of few people that had the ability to have one man rule and decline it… Cincinatus and George Washington, men having lived in the shadows of monarchy. Men may acquire power for their own ambition or because they have the talents and abilities to rule, but it takes an extraordinary man to lay down his power in the face of long term stability.

As I’ve said many times here, I think Caesar took supreme power as it was necessary at the time to effect reform that was needed. His fault was he did not leave the framework for an exit strategy. Once he was murdered, there was little hope that the republic would be restored.