Postwar civil wars cluster in high-capacity regimes with ungoverned zones and in low-capacity nondemocracies.

Evidence

Over the longer period since World War II, civil wars have concentrated in two kinds of regimes: (1) relatively high-capacity regimes, however democratic or nondemocratic, containing significant zones that escape central control (of recent cases, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, Peru, Chechnya, the Philippines, Turkey, and possibly Colombia); (2) low-capacity, nondemocratic regimes (the rest). — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 803

Categorization

• XREF: Directly feeds the reader’s stated project of extending Tilly’s capacity-democracy matrix — noting the two cell types matches where contemporary civil wars concentrate. — connects to: Low state capacity correlates with insurgent mass abduction and civilian militia formation — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 502; High-capacity regimes route contention through government, making mobilization affect regime structure. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 664; A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 145 (+5 more)
• QUESTION: Notice the asymmetry the reader anticipates: the high-capacity cell is said to hold regardless of democracy. Whether ‘zones that escape central control’ rather than political rights regimes do the explanatory work here is worth checking against the constitutional-absorption hypothesis.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 803

Broader Connections

• Regime capacity and democracy jointly shape the violence level of domestic contention #expands (0.90) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 898
• Low-capacity, nondemocratic regimes rely on military force against armed challengers #exemplifies (0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 388
• Higher regime capacity with some democratic freedoms produces intermediate contention #qualifies (0.84) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 503
• Semi-democratic medium-capacity regimes occupy an intermediate contention position #qualifies (0.82) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 503
• High capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations while medium-capacity regimes favor outcomes #qualifies (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979
• High-capacity regimes route contention through government, making mobilization affect regime structure. #expands (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 664
• A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. #expands (0.75) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 145