Definitely! The Republic had a rocky history with social class structure. After the fall of the Roman Kingdom in 509 BCE, a nominal republic (really an aristocracy) was created. under this system, only the upper classes-the Patricians-could vote, and the middle and lower classes-the Plebians-were denied any legal representation or power whatsoever.

However, over time this changed. The Plebs revolted, gaining their own assembly (494 BCE) and eventually political equality (287 BCE). A series of reforms made by the general Marius gave huge incentives for the lower classes to join the military, such as a parcel of land after 20 years served and a relatively stable and large salary (107 BCE) as well as opening the Legions to all classes, not just property owners. He used this influx of troops to defeat the Germanic tribes invading Rome, gaining widespread appeal for both himself and the Republican system.

So, around the time of the Triumvirates, the Roman Republic was a fairly popular government form that had suprisingly large representation for the lower classes. Many of the practices created by the Republic (lower classes in the legions, for example) were continued in the Imperial Era as well.

I hope that answers your question!

The citizenry of Rome may have enjoyed the system but it was only whenever the system was benefitting them, or in a state of emergency. We see little to no public resentment over the government until post-Punic War Rome. We have the rise of the Gracchi Brothers in the 130-120's BC, two reformers who gained a lot of plebian support through Tiberius Gracchus' Agrarian reforms, which lowered the price of foodstuffs in Italy. Just to give a little background, grain was becoming more and more hard to come by in Italy, and merchants had taken advantage of the situation by raising the prices to ridiculous heights that the lower, plebian class, could not manage to afford. The past couple wars had led to a large portion of the Roman population being conscripted into service, leaving their lands to their families (children and wives) who would go bankrupt, and would be bought out by other wealthy farmers, or the state, leaving a lot of Roman soldiers homeless when coming back from serving. These were small farms and plots of land, bought out by rich men who could afford a lot of slaves, and therefore, could afford to maintain more farms (also remember that Egypt, which would become Rome's greatest grain producer in the years to come, was not yet owned by Rome). Tiberius' brother, Gaius, introduced several political bills limiting patrician power, or balancing it with plebian power. Both men were murdered by the Senate, and the murders were not very secretive. So with these two brothers we have a profound effect on Roman civilization and the rise of a political schism within the Republic itself; Plebs began to see this as a way to gain power. In 90BC, this culminated in an event called the Social War. Now, prior to this, all Italians who were not Roman Latins, did not hold total citizenship. Gaius Gracchus had proposed a bill to give full extended citizenship to the Italians during his tribunate, but the bill was rejected by the Senate. Rome won the war in 88BC, but only because they were willing to finally give the full Roman citizenship to it's Italian neighbors. Gaius Marius was consulate during this war, well into his 6th consulship. Gaius' most lasting legacy and impact on Rome was his military reforms which delegated huge power to the plebs. Remember all those homeless soldiers? Well, they no longer needed to be a landowner to join the legions. He also had fought two civil wars with Lucius Sulla, who used to be his lieutenant in Numidia, and the two soon found a profound hate for one another supposedly because Marius began taking all the credit for Sulla's victories. Regardless, the political division was there, as Sulla was a Optimate, and Marius was a Popularis. Sulla will defeat Marius and become self-proclaimed 'permanent Dictator of Rome'. Sulla's reign as permanent dictator (he will retire, in a few years, however) was focused a lot on revoking and removing the previous Grachian reforms which had altered Rome's constitution so much the past decades, he even increased the size of the senate by almost double. All this would lay the precedent for the well known Triumvirate between Marcus Crassus, Julius Caesar and Pompey Magnum. I think it should be pointed out that Crassus, a former Consul himself, was really hated by the people of Rome. Not only was he the wealthiest man in the Republic, he did it in a way that made him benefit off the misfortune of other men, for example; if someone's house was burning down, Crassus would show up with slaves, a firefighting force, only agreeing to help the man if he paid him (later, a firefighting force will be provided by the state under Augustus). He also revived the practice of Decimation in the military, making him unpopular in his own legions. Julius Caesar's popular backing by the people during the civil war and he himself championing himself as a 'hero of the people' is a good way to show just how much the population had become fed up with the Senate. So in conclusion, their deep rooted hatred of monarchy in their very early past had forced early Emperor's such as Augustus to run on the Prima Princeps policy, the 'first man', meaning that he is not an emperor, he's just a man, but... more of a man than you, and we will not see the full out flamboyance of open monocracy until Domition. However, this is not to say that the common men of Rome had any love for their ever-oppressing, opportunistic senate and patrician class. In time, the lower classes will prove to be just as opportunistic among themselves during the Empire, as General after general will usurp the throne from a previous Emperor, usually at the incentive of giving money and power to the Praetorian Guard and the Legions.

The idea that Augustus had to pay lip service to the Republic and tread lightly to avoid offending delicate elite sentiment is based heavily on a distinctly elite written and read body of literature that is not very representative of what Augustus actually did. When communicating with the imperial elite he would act the good Republican primus inter pares, but when talking to others, which would be the entire population of the empire minus six hundred, he was very clear about being a monarch.

Paul Zanker's the Power of images in the Age of Augustus, one of the most important books of classical scholarship in the past couple decades, goes into this in some detail.

Cicero was not of the highest class, while still an equestrian. He loved the Republic. He opposed the First and Second triumvirate (to some degree) and while he backed Pompey in his many attempts to perhaps unintentionally, undermine the Republic, he was merely ambitious. Cicero's loathing of Verres is toxic; Verres was an enemy of the Republic (supposedly).