This may be as old as politics itself. Plato, the 4th-century B.C. Greek philosopher, wrote that a united elite could resist popular uprisings, but that when the ruling class fractured, power could change hands.

Members of the elite, in this game, try to test one another over where they stand, as well as the government’s strength, in order to decide whether to remain loyal. If enough believe they have achieved critical mass to force a leadership change, they will all push at once.

Luisa Ortega, the attorney general, conducted such a test, whether she intended to or not, in late March. When the pro-Maduro Supreme Court moved to seize many of the legislature’s powers, Ms. Ortega condemned the ruling as a “rupture of the constitutional order.”

The government faced a dilemma. Tolerating Ms. Ortega’s dissent would signal that elites could more freely break with Mr. Maduro, making action against him easier. But punishing her would risk backlash from any elites who shared her view.

Ms. Ortega went unpunished, and the ruling was reversed.

“It’s a sign of enormous weakness inside the ruling clique that Luisa Ortega took the position that she did and kept her job,” said Francisco Toro, a Venezuelan political scientist who edits the Caracas Chronicles website. “That’s never happened before.”

Rapid policy changes can open such fissures by forcing elites to decide whether to go along. In 2015, for instance, Mr. Maduro seemed to consider halting legislative elections, but ultimately agreed to hold them.

“They tried to go too far,” Mr. Levitsky said. “That created too much conflict within the regime.”

This is why periods of crisis can heighten risks of elite fracture, as governments make rapid changes to keep up.