The
Roman Senate, contrary to popular belief, was not at all a
democratic body. It was simply what evolved from the assembly of elders that resembled the Senate in the days before the
Republic. Senators were basically the heads of
Roman families, initially being composed only
patricians, but later expanding to include
plebeians. They were selected by their families, not by any sort of
popular vote.
Another common
myth is that the Senate actually had
legislative power. They didn't even have a
salary. The only official power they had was to pass
decrees (
senatus consulta). The rest of their influence came from their massive
social power. Laws passed by the
comitia (general assemblies that
did make laws) could be annulled if the Senate disapproved them. This massive
social significance also manifested itself in such things as the
murder of the
Tiberius Gracchus by a
mob instigated by
Senators that disapproved of his
populist reforms.
Since the number of Senators were based on the number of major families in
Rome, the number of Senators grew with the
population. From 100 initially, to 900 under
Julius Caesar, to a maximum of 6000, divided between the
Roman and
Constantinopolian Senates.
Also,
Senators weren't merely just
Senators. They could hold several
magistracies (
offices that
were elected), 2-3 being the
canonical number, as well as own
businesses and other
private ventures. This integration with
business also made them somewhat
corrupt. Okay, extremely
corrupt. Political campaigning was constant and ruthless. Around election time, riots might have been expected.
Bribery was the
rule, not the
exception.
In general, the
Roman Senate only remotely resembles any modern ones. Most of the similarities come from the fact that it was an assembly of old
fogies talking about how everyone else should live their lives.