As has been shown, a military regime does not evolve in a linear succession in which the repressive phase is followed by an institutionalizing phase and then by a transition to an authoritarian or some other type of regime. A direct succession is precluded not only by the interconnection already pointed out between the first two phases but also by the possibility of interruption or diversion by crises in the regime. These crises can vary greatly in type and may be provoked by external factors, problems within the regime, or the dynamic of confronting the opposition. Here it should be noted that crises in the regime, including those involving changes at the top level, must not be confused with a crisis of the regime or a terminal crisis. In this sense, it is helpful to recall the asynchronic development of a crisis in which, for example, a sharpening of tensions and contradictions on the economic level is not necessarily reflected directly on the political level.