Why do former political leaders return to the highest offices of state during crises in transitional political orders? This study theorizes the crisis-context comeback: a pathway through which former leaders are recruited, or position themselves, to lead collapsing successor governments. It operates along a continuum from invited restoration, where crisis generates demand for experienced leadership, to crisis-capture, where crisis converts latent positioning into an actionable return. Process-tracing Shevardnadze in Georgia (1992) and Aliyev in Azerbaijan (1993), with Armenia as a shadow case, identifies two necessary conditions and two conditioning factors: state crisis (necessary condition); prior-regime governing capital (a compound of administrative competence, patronage networks, coercive-institutional knowledge), international standing, and ideological flexibility (necessary supply-side resource); speed of predecessor failure (scope condition); and external facilitation (permissive condition). The study makes three contributions: it extends the comeback literature beyond its electoral focus by specifying two non-electoral pathways and how the same structural factors configure differently across them; it inverts the prevailing causal arrow by treating comeback as outcome rather than cause; and it introduces prior-regime governing capital as a five-dimensional compound resource applicable to crisis-driven leadership transitions beyond the post-Soviet context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azar Babayev (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: