For what it's worth (and it may not be much), many voices have always used the Roman republic as an example of becoming an empire, and democracy (public participation in governmental choices) as being weaker than a republic (Greek not Roman). Yes, the Italian states of the Renaissance were also republics and never democracies. The main precept is that the peasants are too busily engaged is producing food to worry their heads about serious matters, so thus, nobles, who were often lawyers, are better fitted to decide complicated questions. My sense of things is that 200 years past the Industrial Revolution, especially with computing, this is no longer the case, so the argument for lawyers, ruling on peasant behalf, is no longer valid.
In the US, it seems historically, that the path of the Republic leads most often to politicians (lawyers) rely upon the donations of businesses to their campaign, and thus corruption that leads to the damaging of the public or national interest, because the politicians are connected with corporation$, both during their holding of office, and afterwards as lobbyists, advisor$, and given seats on the boards of directors. Not a bad retirement from "public life," for these public servants. Historically again, if memory serves, the Greek democracy in Athens, was ended not by civil war and collapse, but by being beaten and taken in to the Roman Empire. 476 years later, Rome itself, was beaten down by the Germanic tribes in a similar fashion-who were angry because they had been promised things that a dozen emperors never delivered upon. Byzantium, by the way, was most like an Eastern absolute monarchy from its inception.
I am, sort if ready to consider a true democracy, where the people decide, rather than the rich people deciding wars, taxes, programs. Easier said then done of course.