Depends entirely on what you think to be a good government. Rome's government was a mix of aristocracy in the Senate, plutocracy in the Centuries, democracy in the Plebian Council, and autocracy in the magistrates. As it was, the magistrates and aristocracy prevailed, due to the nature of their society, and the veto, probably the most powerful political instrument one could acquire in the Republic.

Rome's real weakness was it's lack of constitution, which allowed many politicians, such as Gaius Marius, to undermine safeguards against tyranny, like the 10 year rule for Consular reelections. It also suffered from a lack of respect for the rule of law, and later developed an acceptance of military power as a source of political legitimacy. These things undermined the stability of the Roman state.

Were classical feudalism and later developments in monarchism better or worse than Roman republicanism and imperialism? That is hard to say.

Is one form of government being more progressive than another an empiric judgement that one can make? One can have a personal opinion on the matter and try to convince others of its merits, but it's generally considered bad taste to say that one form of society is empirically better than another. It's got tinges of racism and imperialism to it.