Democratic high-capacity regimes exhibit distinctive patterned contention.

Evidence

Nevertheless, with due allowance for that perspective, the year’s reports covered a wide variety of regimes and their contentious performances. Consider this selection from the yearbook for a relatively democratic high-capacity regime: On 16 January the national holiday in memory of Martin Luther King was marred by race rioting in Miami following the shooting of two blacks by a policeman. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 378

Categorization

• DEFINE: Labels the US as a ‘relatively democratic high-capacity regime’ — exemplifies how Tilly classifies regimes along the capacity-democracy axes his reader is hunting for.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 378
• XREF: connects to: Democratic regimes channel contentious claims into prescribed institutional forms. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 447; Higher regime capacity with some democratic freedoms produces intermediate contention — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 503; Regime capacity and democracy jointly shape prevailing contentious repertoires. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 533 (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• Democratic institutions channel contention into electoral forms while autocracies push it underground #expands (0.88)
• A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. #expands (0.82) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 145
• Democracy enables bargaining over contention boundaries that autocrats suppress #expands (0.80)
• High-capacity mobilization hits the regime directly while low-capacity contention rarely does #qualifies (0.74)