The first modern parliaments date back to the Middle Ages. In 1188 Alfonso IX, King of Leon (in current day Spain) convened the three states in the Cortes of León and its considered by UNESCO the first sample of modern parliamentarism in the history of Europe, with the presence of the common people through elected representatives.
An early example of parliamentary government developed in today's Netherlands and Belgium during the Dutch revolt (1581), when the sovereign, legislative and executive powers were taken over by the States General of the Netherlands from the then-monarch, King Philip II of Spain. The modern concept of parliamentary government was further developed in the Kingdom of England (1688).
Proto-parliamentary institutions
Since ancient times, when societies were tribal, there were councils or a headman whose decisions were assessed by village elders. This is often referred to as tribalism. Some scholars argue that in ancient Mesopotamia there was a primitive democratic government where the kings were assessed by council. The same has been said about ancient India, where some form of assemblies existed, and therefore there was some form of democracy. However, these claims are not accepted by most scholars, who see these forms of government as oligarchies.
Europe
Ancient Athens was the cradle of democracy. The Athenian assembly (ἐκκλησία ekklesia) was the most important institution, and every male of Athenian citizenship above the age of thirty could take part in the discussions; however, no women, no men under the age of thirty, and none of the many thousands of slaves were allowed to participate. However, Athenian democracy was not representative, but rather direct, and therefore the ekklesia was not a parliamentary system.
The Roman republic, established in the 6th century BC, had legislative assemblies, who had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new statutes, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances. The Roman Senate was not the ancestor or predecessor of modern parliamentarism in any sense, because the Roman senate was not a legislative body. The Roman Senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy.
In Anglo-Saxon England, the Witenagamot was an important political institution. The name derives from the Old English ƿitena ȝemōt, or witena gemōt, for "meeting of wise men". The first recorded act of a witenagemot was the law code issued by King Æthelberht of Kent ca. 600, the earliest document which survives in sustained Old English prose; however, the witan was certainly in existence long before this time. The Witan, along with the folkmoots (local assemblies), is an important ancestor of the modern English parliament.
Iran
The first recorded signs of a council to decide on different issues in ancient Iran dates back to 247 BC, the time of the Parthian Empire. Parthians established the first Iranian empire since the conquest of Persia by Alexander and by their early years of reigning, an assembly of the nobles called “Mehestan” was formed that made the final decision on very serious issues.
The word "Mehestan" consists of two parts: "Meh", a word of the old Persian origin, which literally means "The Great" and "-stan", a suffix in the Persian language, which means “place”. Altogether Mehestan means a place where the greats come together.
The Mehestan Assembly, which consisted of Zoroastrian religious leaders and clan elders exerted great influence over the administration of the kingdom.
One of the most important decisions of the council was made in 208 AD, when a civil war broke out and the Mehestan decided that the empire would be ruled by two brothers simultaneously, Ardavan V and Blash V. In 224 AD, following the dissolution of the Parthian empire after over 470 years, the Mahestan council came to an end.
Islamic World
Some Muslim scholars argue that the Islamic shura (a method of taking decisions in Islamic societies) is analogous to the parliament. However, others (notably from Hizb ut-Tahrir) disagree, highlighting some fundamental differences between the shura system and the parliamentary system.