Okay, so between a book discussion with some friends and listening to a podcast on Roman history, I think I’ve come to a conclusion.
Laura Roslin is Julius Caesar. Or else maybe Augustus Caesar.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but there you go. One person ascending to power under questionable legal pretenses, an unhappy senate/quorum, and basically doing their own thing to enact reforms and keep the people together during an unstable time. You can argue motives and whether or not it was for the good of the people or the good of themselves, but there you go.
I think a lot of the perception of Laura as a questionable figure also comes from the Western view that power belongs with the people at all times. There are cases where popular rule can be a bad thing, since a multitude of opinions means you multiply the BS. And I think that BSG did a good job of showing both sides of that issue, with a sympathetic character making a lot of ruthless and morally questionable decisions for a variety of reasons and acting in a very human manner. Was she a great leader? Probably not, but even the people we think today were history’s best leaders are viewed through rose-tinted glasses and tend to have the more unsavory details glossed over. To keep the analogy, Julius Caesar enacted some great social reforms among the Roman people and was a benefactor of the plebian class, but he also killed and enslaved millions of Gauls, etc.
So… yeah. I dunno.