Most regimes in history have been low-capacity and nondemocratic.

Evidence

Throughout human history the distribution of regimes has occurred unevenly across the types. By far, most regimes have fallen into the lowcapacity, nondemocratic sector. Many of the biggest and most powerful, however, have dwelt in the high-capacity, nondemocratic sector. High-capacity, democratic regimes have been rare and mostly recent. Low-capacity, democratic regimes have remained few and far between. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 179

Categorization

• XREF: Relevant to whether democratic high-capacity states—the reader’s test case—are rare outliers whose institutional channeling effects may be atypical rather than representative. — connects to: Full-scale low-capacity democratic regimes are historically rare and short-lived. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 449; Low-capacity democracies are rare and historically short-lived; The Uganda example shows a low-capacity nondemocratic regime crushing challengers by military force. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 387 (+2 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 179

Broader Connections

• The Uganda example shows a low-capacity nondemocratic regime crushing challengers by military force. #exemplifies (0.88) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 387
• Low-capacity democracies are rare and historically short-lived #expands (0.85)
• Many historical regimes were simultaneously partly democratic and partly monarchical. #complicates (0.74) — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts and Measurement, 1212
• Low-capacity nondemocratic regimes tolerate wide contentious claim-making. #complicates (0.72) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 448