Laws of contention vary by regime type and era.

Evidence

We have no reason to expect, however, that a single model of relationships among political transformation, social-structural transformation, and struggle will account for the character of contention in all times and places; on the contrary, we should expect the laws of contention to vary significantly among agrarian empires, urban representative democracies, and clan-organized nomadic systems. Nor do we have any warrant to postulate general tendencies toward more modern, differentiated, or effective performances and repertoires; only within particular historical eras characterized by directional changes in states and nonstate social structures should we discover directionality in contention. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 365

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Contention’s regularities need historical, not just mechanistic, explanation.; Postcolonial trajectories, not regime quadrant, explain differing contention inscriptions — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1315; A regime consists of repeated strong relations among government and major political actors. (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• Contention is not a hydraulic response to pressure but shaped by prior institutions #expands (0.75) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 631
• Political actors form through regimes rather than preceding them. #complicates (0.72) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 576
• Regime change drives repertoire change more than popular consciousness does #corroborates (0.72)