When I read about ancient (republican) Rome, I used to wonder how much their having an off-ramp from power contributed to their stability.
In many of the contemporary cultures (e.g., the post-Alexander greek kingdoms), being toppled from the heights of power would result in exile, imprisonment, or worse; in the republic, you could lose a battle as a general or step down from being consul and still lead a peaceful life afterwards.
One could argue that the change in this situation in the late republic directly resulted in it's downfall--Caesar crossed the Rubicon because he feared prosecution and imprisonment by his opponents once he lost his proconsular immunity.
That's a reasonable thought. But a counter perspective is that leaders may have had more integrity and fidelity to ethical behaviors making prosecution less necessary. If that were the case then it would be better to have continual investigation and prosecution possible so there is no shield of power or incentive to hold on to the shield. The check on power is the punishment. The threat of punishment encourages leaders that are unethical to self select avoiding office.