A regime is defined relationally as recurring strong interactions among political actors

Evidence

A regime means repeated, strong interactions among major political actors including a government; for Peru, then, we single out the more salient patterns of interaction among all these actors: not only the army, the government, and political parties, but also labor unions, indigenous groups, shantytown activists, media organizations, progovernment and antigovernment militias, churches, associations, and organized segments of business. When interactions between a pair of actors recur in similar forms, we begin to speak of a relation between the actors. We then describe a regime in terms of prevailing relations among political actors, including the government. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 125

Categorization

• DEFINE: Core relational definition of regime — not institutions or law but prevailing interaction patterns among actors.
• QUESTION: If regimes are defined purely by interaction patterns among political actors, does that leave room for constitutional rights regimes as structural absorbents — or are rights regimes downstream of interaction patterns?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 125
• XREF: connects to: A regime consists of repeated strong relations among government and major political actors.; Political actors form through regimes rather than preceding them. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 576; Regime quadrants describe agent-citizen relations, not just citizen repertoires — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 429

Broader Connections

• A regime consists of repeated strong relations among government and major political actors. #expands (0.98)
• Political actors form through regimes rather than preceding them. #complicates (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 576