Well, you know. The emperor who fancies himself a music hall singer. What's her name again? There are some things that are common to a decline in an important understanding of history. There are 99, this is one of them.
... Wait, Caligula? That was some four centuries before the Western empire bit the dust, only a few decades after the _creation_ of the empire.
I mean, I know people love blaming absolutely everything for the collapse of the Roman Empire, but delayed action of four centuries feels like pushing it.
My guesses - this is about (a) inequality reaching a breaking point, where non-elites are starting to reject the social contract, making elite signaling dangerous, and (b) that elites at that moment don't have enough justification for their elevated status (mystification, misrecognition, etc)
And by that I mean a revolutionary people's party had replaced a corrupt elected government with a divine monarchy.
(I don't think I need to describe the wonders that did for equality in the Roman state. Archeological record indicates when barbarians conquered Roman lands, the nutrition of the lower classes often improved. But for some reason those same lower classes that had destroyed the republic never complained about inequality in imperial times.)
This route makes sense to me; I do think the deal has been getting worse and worse lately, and periodic renegotiation is required to keep things running properly.
If that's it, then you could've been clearer.