This article is a double thought experiment answering to the following questions: 1) how farone can go in explaining the dynamics of political regimes and transitions between them on the basis ofan abstract theory, including a small number of basic categories and postulates; 2) what is the heuristicalpotential of the theory in explaining the nature of neopatrimonial regimes. The Weberian paradigm offour social spheres is used (administrative, military, economic and ideological / cultural / religious).These areas correspond to the social universals: power, violence, property and symbols. When combinedwith a functional scheme of A. Stinchcombe they are explicated as homeostatic variables: the main objectsof concern of social actors. The concepts of political regime, political relations, political interaction,routine and conflict strategies are defined. Transformation of political regime is determined by the changein its core complex of political relations. The conditions of a regime crisis as a conflict between actors forwhich the levels of basic homeostatic variables become unacceptable (from isolation and full dominationto equal partnership and integration) are considered, as well as the laws of formation of each such type ofrelationship. Patrimony as an antithesis of bureaucracy is always reborn and enhanced by weakening thestate and its formal rules and institutions. The nature of neopatrimonialism includes a core patrimony(the network of patronage ties) and the declarative shell of formal democratic institutions which are constructed on impersonal formal principles of bureaucracy.