Yeah, and I hate to add another qualifier to the mix and sound like even more of an apologist, but in addition to having four original members and a democratic process, they've also been the biggest band in the world since somewhere between JT and AB. And partially because of the increasing diversity of the listening audience and more niche options, no one has really been able to take that title from them in 25 years.
This is in many ways a self-imposed pressure to be everything to everyone (especially from 2000 onward). But when the machine gets that big, it can be difficult to turn off. To say that Motörhead or Wire are still able to put out great (or "better") albums doesn't really mean anything in this context.
So I don't think they are in a "fairly unique" position but rather a very unique one. No active band has maintained that level of status for that long, and still release albums that receive legitimate critical consideration and are the primary focus of each new tour. I'd argue that no Stones release has been a legitimate "event" since Voodoo Lounge, and of course that album doesn't have anything interesting or noteworthy about it, and was only featured lightly on its respective tour.
We make a special case for U2 with these comparisons because they ARE a special case, regardless of whether or not you enjoy what they've been doing the last 10-15 years.