Its perfectly appropriate to have a dictator at the head of a republic. You see, a republic is really a representative democracy. All people have a say in government, but only through representatives which do the decision making for them. That and there is some sort of constitution which defines the way the government basically operates.
Well, all that needs be done is for some sort of majority of the representatives agree on wanting a dictator.
Here I will quote this from my encyclopedia:
Quote:
Dictator
In the Roman republic, a temporary magistrate with extraordinary powers.
Nominated in times of crisis by a consul, recommended by the Senate, and confirmed by the Comitia Curiata, the dictator's term was six months or the duration of the crisis, and he had authority over all other magistrates. By 300 BC his powers were limited; no dictators were chosen after 202. The dictatorships of Sulla and Julius Caesar were a new form with almost unlimited powers. Caesar became dictator for life just before his assassination; afterward the office was abolished.
|
If you read the way our constitution is set up, the Dictator is the senior official of the ruling party. Our setup especially makes sense for Zormite, because of the underlying story which I have gone by since the beginning of the Republic. Its a republic, yes, more modern and stable. The ruling party is actually a group of loyalists to the old royal bloodline of the Zormite throne: Archigos. Hence, they attempt to put royalty into power through democratic means, and no matter who is in power, the constitution gives that person pretty much the same rights as a king.
This royalist party also had heavy influence in the drafting of the constitution because they were the only truly organized group directly after the revolution.
If any were unaware, the party's name is NAPZ, which officialy is the National Archist Party of Zormite.