Full-scale low-capacity democratic regimes are historically rare and short-lived.

Evidence

Low-capacity, democratic regimes have rarely formed in history, and even more rarely survived; most have taken no more than a local scale. When they have existed, however, they have typically prescribed few performances, tolerated a great many, and passed a great deal of their public life in contention among conflicting claims, factions, and forms of action. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 449

Categorization

• QUESTION: Why do low-capacity democratic regimes almost never form or survive at national scale, while high-capacity ones persist? Worth chasing whether Tilly explains the mechanism elsewhere.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 449
• XREF: connects to: Low-capacity democracies are rare and historically short-lived; Democratic regimes are rare, contingent, recent historical creations. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 180; Most regimes in history have been low-capacity and nondemocratic. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 179

Broader Connections

• Low-capacity democracies are rare and historically short-lived #corroborates (1.00)
• Democratic regimes are rare, contingent, recent historical creations. #expands (0.75) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 180
• Most regimes in history have been low-capacity and nondemocratic. #expands (0.72) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 179