In times of crisis the Roman Republic reverted to a dictatorship. What does this indicate about the Roman republic?

I cannot
agree with the above post. Contrary to the above answer, the dictatorship provision of the Roman
Constitution was an inherent weakness which ultimately brought down the Republic. The
dictatorship was employed by Julius Caesar, who used his power as dictator to eliminate his
rivals and rule by decree. He was assassinated because there were rumors that he planned to have
himself crowned king of Rome. The Romans, proud of their Republic, never had a king, and did not
intend to start. In the end, however, they lost their Republic.

A more recent
example is perhaps far more indicative. Similar to the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the
Constitution of the Weimar Republic of Germany also provided for a dictatorship during times of
"emergency." The "emergency" for Germany was the burning of the Reichstag by
a Communist sympathizer and ultimately led to the investment of dictatorial powers in Adolf
Hitler. The rest is well known.

The provision for a dictator obviously was
intended to provide for quick decision making without debate in times of immenent national
peril. Even so, it was--and is--an inherent weakness which was--can can be--easily exploited.
One should remember the words of Lord Acton:

Power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The
United States of America has weathered a number of crises in its two hundred years without the
necessity of a dictatorship. OUr founders were wise enough to avoid the mistakes of Rome and the
later mistakes of Germany.