I've been making a somewhat meandering study of political themes and populist reforms of the past few millennia, and am noting some very common patterns. Among them, who makes and judges the law is crucial. From A.H.M. Jones biograpy Augustus, a description of 1st centure B.C.E. Rome's two primary political parties -- a plutonomic obligates, the proletarian populares, and the swing-voting equites, and the fundamental platforms: strong property rights and absolute honoring of debt by the obligates, land reform (democratising the means of production) and grain subsidies (one way to accomplishing what a living wage would provide), and the interests of each in either securing more power for themselves, or of weakening the power of the opposition. Oh, and complete with extrajudicial executions of the unfortunate. It all sound stunningly contemporary. Frighteningly so.

<quote>

[Gracchus's land distribution bill of 133 B.C.] was the first in a series of violent clashes between two groups who called themselves the optimates and the populares. The nucleus of the optimates was the small clique of nobles … who more or less monopolized the highest offices and dominated the Senate, but they had wide support among the propertied class, even, as Cicero says, propserous freedman; otherwise they could not have maintained their unbroken hold on the higher magistracies. They were conservatives, who regarded the rights of property as sacred, and therefore resisted bitterly any attempts to redistribute land or cancel debt. They were upholders of the constitution and of religion, which could be used to block any revolutionary legislation. Though at times they had to yield to popular pressure, they always remained the government.

The populares were a much less well defined group. Their leaders were individual politicians or very small groups of politicians, who at intervals attempted to legislate in the interests of the people, by which they meant the common people.… The populares developed a regular programme of legislation:

First came the distribution of smallholdings to landless citizens.…

The next … was the provision by the state of corn for the proletariat of Rome at a price that they could afford.

From time to time the populares were interested in the problem of debt, which frequently meant agricultural indebtedness.

They were early successful in introducing the secret ballot into voting in the assembly, for legislation, elections and trials.

They also stood up against the execution of Roman citizens without a lawful trial; the Senate was very prone to ignore this elementary right of the citizen in what it deemed to be political crises.

Most populares advocated the grant of citizenship to the Italian allies. They were generally interested in the welfare of the provincials; most of the extortion laws were promoted by populares.

Finally, they substituted equites (citizens owning 400,000 sesterces who were not senators) for senators as jurors in the criminal courts.

</quote>

Compare these with the various demands of the American and French revolutions, the British Chartists, and the revolutions of 1848 (Wikipedia will give you a good overview of each).

Title: Augustus.
Author: A. H. M. Jones.
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York.
(c) 1970.
SBN 393 04328 2

(The book itself is authoritative and well-researched but exceptionally densely written, to the point of being difficult to parse. There are other biographies, which though longer may well be more accessible.)