The constitution of the Roman republic gave the whole legislative power to the people, without allowing a negative voice either to the nobility or consuls. This unbounded power they possessed in a collective, not in a representative body. The consequences were: When the people, by success and conquest, had become very numerous, and had spread themselves to a great distance from the capital, the city-tribes, though the most contemptible, carried almost every vote: They were, therefore, most cajoled by every one that affected popularity: They were supported in idleness by the general distribution of corn, and by particular bribes, which they received from almost every candidate: By this means, they became every day more licentious, and the Campus Martius was a perpetual scene of tumult and sedition: Armed slaves were introduced among these rascally citizens; so that the whole government fell into anarchy, and the greatest happiness, which the Romans could look for, was the despotic power of the C æ ae originally 'æ'; separated to make searching the text easier sars . Such are the effects of democracy without a representative.
I find that one text that features a strong connection with Macbeth is All the President's Men by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Both works go very far and detail very well the extent of how political power corrupts leaders. Macbeth becomes driven with the need to act in a corrupt manner to maintain and consolidate his power. There are no limits to what he will do to ensure that his power remains. In the Woodward and Bernstein book, Nixon and his staff are shown in much the same light. Macbeth embraced murder, and while Nixon and his staff couldn't do that for the legality issue, they embraced everything but in order to maintain their power. Macbeth viewed politics as war and his opponents as enemies. Nixon and his staff did much of the same. Both works shown how there is little in way of limitations for people in power who wish to do whatever they can to keep it. In both works, ambition proves to be morally and politically disastrous. The moral and ethical depravity shown by both leaders is something that connects both texts. Macbeth has some realization to what he has done and the cost it has ensued. One can only presume that Nixon's resignation in shame and disgrace prompted the same type of reflection, perhaps not as the same level as Shakespeare's protagonist. In this element, both works share a connection.