Semi-democratic medium-capacity regimes occupy an intermediate contention position

Evidence

Compare with Uganda, Peru’s government exercises substantially higher capacity as its regime maintains at least some democratic freedoms. We might therefore expect its contentious politics to occupy an intermediate position: some prescribed performances; a medium range of tolerated performances; much contention by means of forbidden performances; higher involvement of government agents in contention (often as principals); and medium levels of violence in contentious interactions. Contrasted to bloody Uganda, Peru’s contention during the early twenty-first century did look somewhat more like our idealized model of medium-capacity, semi-democratic regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 503

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Democratic institutions channel contention into electoral forms while autocracies push it underground; Low-capacity democracies are rare and historically short-lived; A regime’s past path in capacity-democracy space shapes its contention practices. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 145 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• High capacity and democracy suppress revolutionary situations while medium-capacity regimes favor outcomes #expands (0.90) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 979
• High-capacity mobilization hits the regime directly while low-capacity contention rarely does #qualifies (0.75)