Athenian style democracy in ancient Rome

Both ancient Athens, and and ancient Rome were, technically, democracies at times. But, their approach to democracy was rather different. Rome was, like most modern "democracies", a Res Publica, a "public entity", where the influence of the general public on government was mediated by election of representatives to run the government, for a fixed period of time. French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau described "representative democracy" as a contradiction in terms, because the representatives will simply represent themselves and their own interests. Effectively, timed dictatorships, or oligarchies. Now, while the Athenians also elected representatives, they adopted an approach to controlling any abuses or excessive self-interest while they were in power, that was rather unique. Any and all government officials could be ostracized -- expelled from Athens -- by a simple vote of a small percentage of the total Athenian citizen population, at any time at all. Imagine if the President of the United States, or the Prime Minister or Queen of England could be expelled from the United States, or Britain, if a million signatures could be collected from the population as a whole! Now, that would change things a bit, wouldn't it? So, we could expect rather less tolerance of disparities of wealth, and rather less corruption, hmmm? Probably, the conflicts between the plebians and the equestrians would be largely eliminated, in Rome. Probably, the Roman Empire is delayed, and the democracy lasts longer. Or, would a more democratic Roman Democracy be more self-destructive, like Athens was, and would Rome collapse rather earlier, with no Roman Empire at all? Any thoughts, at all?