Yes and no. They were tasked with fixing a particular problem or threat, and had absolute authority only in the scope of fixing that problem. They were then meant to step down once the problem was fixed.
The full extent of the dictatorial power was considerable, but not unlimited. It was circumscribed by the conditions of a dictator’s appointment, as well as by the evolving traditions of Roman law, and to a considerable degree depended on the dictator’s ability to work together with other magistrates. The precise limitations of this power were not sharply defined, but subject to debate, contention, and speculation throughout Roman history.[46]
In the pursuit of his causa, the dictator’s authority was nearly absolute; however, as a rule he could not exceed the mandate for which he was appointed; a dictator nominated to hold the comitia could not then take up a military command against the wishes of the Senate.[f][g] Dictators could carry out functions which fell outside the scope of their initial appointments, but only at the direction of the Senate; this included the drawing of funds from the public treasury, which a dictator could only do with the Senate’s authorisation.[29]
Yes and no. They were tasked with fixing a particular problem or threat, and had absolute authority only in the scope of fixing that problem. They were then meant to step down once the problem was fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
Well yes that’s why the “one or two years”