Democracies prescribe few performances but tolerate many while high-capacity autocracies do the reverse

Evidence

How do prescribed, tolerated, and forbidden performances vary within regime space? Both governmental capacity and democracy affect overlaps among prescribed, tolerated, forbidden, and contentious public political performances. How? First, democratic regimes absolutely prescribe relatively few such performances, but they tolerate quite a range; while military conscription, tax payments, and replies to censuses come close to being compulsory for affected parties in democracies, even registering to vote remains voluntary in most democratic regimes. High-capacity, nondemocratic regimes, in contrast, commonly prescribe a wide range of public political performances while tolerating few others. They also forbid a much wider variety of claim-making performances. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 446

Categorization

• XREF: Core of reader’s regime-capacity/democracy matrix hunt - pairs with reading purpose to test whether prescribed-vs-tolerated asymmetry channels subordinate politicization. — connects to: Similar capacity-democracy positions still yield sharply divergent national repertoires — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1315; Low-capacity democracies are rare and historically short-lived; High capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations while medium-capacity regimes favor outcomes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979 (+7 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 446

Broader Connections

• Regime capacity and democracy jointly shape prevailing contentious repertoires. #corroborates (0.90) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 533
• Democratic institutions channel contention into electoral forms while autocracies push it underground #expands (0.85)
• High capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations while medium-capacity regimes favor outcomes #qualifies (0.82) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979
• Higher regime capacity with some democratic freedoms produces intermediate contention #expands (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 503
• A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. #corroborates (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 145
• Highly despotic regimes cannot dominate too deeply and rely on indirect rule #exemplifies (0.75) — Michael Omi, Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States, 163
• Low-capacity democracies are rare and historically short-lived #qualifies (0.72)
• Democracies install baseline rights even where capacity is low and violence high #complicates (0.72) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1303
• Direct rule enables democracy but has mostly sustained authoritarian regimes #qualifies (0.72) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 183