Revolutionary situations are best explained by regime processes, not universal prior conditions

Evidence

At least half of what revolution could mean depended on the organization of states and their regimes. In that sense, the history of revolutions tracks the histories of states and regimes. Second, general explanations of revolutions in terms of favorable, necessary, or sufficient conditions might possibly work for a single era and region, but have no chance of validity for all European revolutions, much less all revolutions everywhere. Third, the decomposition of revolutionary situations into formation of contenders, commitment to contenders’ claims, and failures of rulers to suppress the first two disciplines the search for valid explanations, and holds some hope of identifying processes—not prior conditions—that recur in a wide variety of revolutions. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1062

Categorization

  • XREF: This three-part decomposition of revolutionary situations (contender formation, commitment, suppression failure) is the same analytic machinery Tilly developed in ‘From Mobilization to Revolution’ and echoes in the reader’s own regime-capacity framework testing. — connects to: Revolutionary situations concentrate in low-capacity regimes while revolutionary outcomes remain rare everywhere — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 985; Explanations of revolution must name processes, not prior conditions, and vary by regime. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1062; Regime structure determines revolutionary situation frequency and character — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1045 (+3 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1062

Broader Connections