Julius Caesar (100 to 44 BCE) often appears as a flawed genius. A genius, he dominated his generation. Flawed, he was murdered for the way in which he did so. Caesar changed Rome, destroying the centuries-old Republican form of Roman government based on annually elected magistrates. He also changed the shape of Europe by attaching France to the Mediterranean world. It is not at all clear whether the failing government of Rome in the 1st century BCE would have accomplished any such thing on its own. The conquest of Gaul required the vision of a man operating outside the bounds of the Roman constitution, and the skill of one of history's greatest military minds.

The fundamental questions that Caesar's career raises are connected with the nature of democratic institutions. Can democratic institutions work effectively and consistently in the interests of the majority of their citizens, delivering the benefits of an orderly society in an equitable fashion? Or are those institutions inherently flawed, enabling self-interested actors to seize control of their operation, and hence doomed to failure when citizens weary of the non-delivery of the benefits they expect? When democratic institutions falter, will the citizens of a democracy turn inevitably to a strongman who promises he will deliver what others have failed to? Is Caesar a model for others, or is he a unique political figure whose powerful intelligence and organizational capacity set him apart not only from his contemporaries but from generations of would-be successors?

Being Caesar was not easy. It required patience and a capacity to listen. Even those who did not like him admitted that Caesar was an exceptionally bright, highly cultivated man with the ability to win others to his side through the power of his arguments. These are not qualities that many aspiring dictators possess. Although Caesar himself was no democrat, he did genuinely care for people who were less fortunate than himself and for the well-being of the individuals who served him. In his accounts of the wars he fought first in Gaul and then of the civil war he began when he crossed the Rubicon in 49 BCE, he is very clear that his thinking while on campaign included consideration of the welfare of his men, and he inspired genuine loyalty among those who were closest to him. While Caesar was absolutely convinced that the democratic institutions of the Roman Republic were inefficient and could not provide effective government for the empire Rome had acquired, his understanding of how to fix the situation changed with circumstances. It was the ability to adjust that enabled Caesar to become Cassius's colossus.

We can know Caesar better than virtually any other figure prior to Saint Augustine, his contemporary Cicero (106 to 43 BCE) excepted, through a close reading of his own works. In particular, we can learn a great deal from what he has to say about himself and his principles of administration. He has a great deal to tell us about how he understood his role as a general, the role of politics in strategic planning, the management of an organization, and the enormous attention to detail that is necessary if a leader is to be successful. The organization Caesar built in the decade he was in Gaul was stronger than the state he ostensibly served. He deployed this organization to transform that state.

Caesar presented himself as a man devoted to bettering the condition of the average person. He defined good government as a government that served the interests of the people as a whole. He despised political systems in which the average person was held in thrall to the power and self-interest of aristocrats. In his view of government's purpose to serve the interests of the majority of citizens, he may pass for a 'populist' according to both Roman and modern definitions, but a populist need not be, quite often is not, a democrat. Caesar also despised inefficiency, and the Roman democracy in which he grew up was crumbling. The political scene was dominated by wealthy aristocrats who saw the enhancement of their personal wealth and the influence of their families as the purpose of government. The average Roman derived little benefit from the system. If such a person attached him or herself to the interests of the right politician, she or he might see some personal benefit, but there was little freedom of choice. A man (only men could vote) might vote for a program that looked like it could help him or his family, but rarely would it be the case that the program was enacted in the way it had been advertised. We may judge from the conduct of the Roman people that they had little love for a system of government prone to gridlock and corruption.

Caesar put himself in a position to achieve high office when he adopted an anti-establishment stance. But his vision of what government should do for the average person and of how he could best exercise power did not fit within the institutions of the Roman democracy. He needed a way to break the logjam that typically impeded progress. His inclination was not to argue but to order. His dictatorial tendencies were evident to all from the way he rammed a massive legislative agenda through the voting assemblies, ignoring the Roman Senate when it refused to act on his proposals—and he made no bones about what he had done. It was as a dictator that he finally fulfilled his promises to the Roman people. Because he did that, the Roman people supported the young man who would be heir to Caesar's estate, and that support led to the establishment of a monarchical system of government that would endure for centuries.

Caesar was confident that his understanding of the needs of Roman society was correct, and while he was often willing to change direction when new data came to him, he was very clear that he was the person who would make any decision on the basis of that data. He was certainly aware that he irritated people whose background as senators made them feel they should be seen as his equals. These people supported Brutus and Cassius. In the end, Caesar was murdered by the rich and disgruntled. His reforms were preserved and expanded because the Roman people felt that, for once, they had in Caesar a leader who cared for them, and that his version of government was better than a dysfunctional democracy.