A regime consists of repeated strong relations among government and major political actors.

Evidence

We should therefore avoid any supposition that the political actors of twentieth-century South Africa had somehow formed prior to and independently of the successive regimes within which they lived and struggled (Jung 2000). — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 576 (#expands, via linked claim)

We have no reason to expect, however, that a single model of relationships among political transformation, social-structural transformation, and struggle will account for the character of contention in all times and places; on the contrary, we should expect the laws of contention to vary significantly among agrarian empires, urban representative democracies, and clan-organized nomadic systems. Nor do we have any warrant to postulate general tendencies toward more modern, differentiated, or effective performances and repertoires; only within particular historical eras characterized by directional changes in states and nonstate social structures should we discover directionality in contention. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 365 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Regime actors divide into members, challengers, and outsiders by access.; Claim-making reciprocally alters the regime that constrains it in the medium run — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1306; A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 145 (+2 more)

Related

• Political actors form through regimes rather than preceding them. (similarity 0.89)
• Laws of contention vary by regime type and era. (similarity 0.89)
• Claim-making reciprocally alters the regime that constrains it in the medium run (similarity 0.83)
• A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. (similarity 0.83)
• Contention-driven regime transformation remains an unanswered puzzle (similarity 0.82)
• Contention is not a hydraulic response to pressure but shaped by prior institutions (similarity 0.81)
• Contention’s regularities need historical, not just mechanistic, explanation. (similarity 0.80)
• Regime actors divide into members, challengers, and outsiders by access. (similarity 0.80)
• Stable regimes sustain strong flexible repertoires shaped jointly by culture and structure (similarity 0.79)
• Repertoire clustering stems from daily organization, contention history, and regime operations (similarity 0.78)
• Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Political actors form through regimes rather than preceding them. #expands (0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 576
• Laws of contention vary by regime type and era. #qualifies (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 365