Contention forms are regime-bound but also historically embedded

Evidence

Regime, therefore form of contentious politics! If only it were that simple. Although systematic differences in the forms of contentious politics by regime do exist, each specific form lives embedded in the history of its regime. The differences between our reports from Iraq, Colombia, Uganda, Nepal, and Pakistan—all more or less low-capacity nondemocratic regimes—should tell us as much. This book’s problem is to describe and explain change and variation in the forms of contentious politics, then to relate the change and variation systematically to the variable operation of political regimes. Resolving the problem requires careful specification of how contention articulates with its social setting. We are looking for regularities falling somewhere between the particular histories of individual regimes and the general history of all regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 231

Categorization

• QUESTION: Tilly concedes same-type regimes (all low-capacity nondemocratic) show divergent contention — directly relevant to whether the framework can bear the reader’s asymmetry test.
• XREF: Directly addresses the reader’s central question: the regime-type-to-repertoire mapping is loose enough that institutional absorption asymmetry may be untestable at this granularity. — connects to: No coherent theory links regime type to forms of contention — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 42; Extant theory ignores how contention itself transforms regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 45; Regime capacity shapes how contention is channeled between prescribed, tolerated, and forbidden performances — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 484 (+13 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 231

Broader Connections

• Laws of contention vary by regime type and era. #expands (0.90) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 365
• Contention’s regularities need historical, not just mechanistic, explanation. #corroborates (0.88)
• A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. #expands (0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 145
• Contention is not a hydraulic response to pressure but shaped by prior institutions #expands (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 631