A boring post about international relations theory that you shouldn't read unless absolutely interested

After reading Chuck Klosterman, I would guess that most people retain some overanalytical effluvium in their brains for at least twenty minutes or so, which is where we find me now (side note: most of the quality books from the Peace Corps library have returned to circulation after spending months upon months holed up in the bedrooms of a few select volunteers who never even cracked open the cover, but never mind that). I imagine most people would take advantage of this temporary boost in insightfulness to debunk some of Mr Klosterman's views on the human condition, or to disagree with his position on the Celtics-Lakers rivalry of the 80s as representing Republicans and Democrats, but that has no place here. Not only is it irrelevant to Georgia, but it is so 2004.

And now onto something completely different: international relations theory. Feel free to stop reading now; you can always go here if you prefer a post filled with pictures. Before this starts, let's just put out a disclaimer that the author of this post feels that IR theory is totally and completely useless, which is why she turned down the offer of the Rhodes committee to study IR at Oxford for two stipend-filled years, even though they were begging and pleading at her feet. The problem with IR theory is the same problem with diets, in that one comes into fashion, is religiously followed for a few years, and then is found to be the cause of a whole new set of problems that can only be solved by a new fad diet or ivory tower political prescription. Atkins chokes up your arteries as it tries to cut your carbohydrates, neoliberal economic austerity measures kick your nation's industrial sector in the balls as they try to cut your debt.

The main question here is this: do domestic politics matter in international relations? And once again, seriously, if you're uninterested in international relations, you should stop reading now. Not kidding.

Anyway, what brought this up was the Georgian parliamentary elections last Wednesday. Whilst I was on house arrest for my own safety, the rest of the nation was casting their ballots in an election that was moved up from its original autumn 2008 date by a referendum in January. This was supposed to be a way for the opposition to have a chance to establish a significant presence in the Parliament earlier on so the president wouldn't have three seasons of free rein. To achieve this end, approximately four billion opposition parties floated their candidates for election. I nearly had a heart attack and died when the public votes supporting the opposition were scattered among multiple candidates, allowing the majority party to keep that title. Surely such a paradox has never before occurred, and perhaps we will never know the full reasons behind this phenomenon.

In any case, it brings us to a question oft raised in IR circles, or at least I assume that it is since I am not a part of any: do domestic politics matter on the international scene? First answer: God, I hope not. Domestic politics are inherently boring to me, as they're just one step closer to state senators and county commissioners wrangling over new bridge construction and zoning ordinances... which someone has to take care of, but that person is not me. Populist I am not. Second answer: Of course it matters. How could it not matter that the Georgian people can storm Rustaveli in the thousands whenever they want and trigger new presidential and parliamentary elections? Part of what got Misha into trouble last November was the perception that he was reacting to the wants of the international community more than the needs of his constituency. No president is an island, or something like that.

Reluctant answer three: Maybe it doesn't matter. As anyone in the US who has the misfortune to get into a Skype conversation with me will tell you, my life revolves around Georgia. OBVIOUSLY. But I still understand why people find it annoying. That same part of me that revels in the ups and downs of Georgian news, the part of me whose permission to leave Samtredia depends on whether or not the Christian Democrats have decided to protest in Kutaisi that day, can't imagine that none of this matters outside the border.

And of course, I'm not referring to whether it makes the news in the US because nothing makes the news in the US. My friend told me the podcast from his town's local newscast had a segment about the tornadoes that killed 5 people which was times longer than the segment on the earthquake in China and typhoon in Myanmar that killed thousands. To be fair, the Georgian news covers mostly Georgia, which makes me suspicious that perhaps in terms of square mileage of interest zone, the US wins. Are European networks spending 20 minutes on Hu Jintao's visit to Japan, or are they covering the events of four neighboring countries that are about as far apart as Ohio is from Maryland? I'm just saying.

I'm asking if it affects other countries when Georgia has a snap election. In this case, both snap elections resulted in a continuation of the status quo, so the answer is definitely no. But I wonder if anyone was waiting for the parliamentary election results with bated breath other than the guys who lost it. How does it affect the UK if the Labor Party gets a significant minority stake in the house? Does a blip go off on a radar at the NSA when the Georgian speaker of Parliament announces that she's stepping down?

Now that I'm writing this, I'm wondering if maybe the obvious answer I should have thought of before I started this post was that the Parliament/Congress/Duma/Diet elections don't matter to other countries unless the legislative branch significantly affects the power of the President/Prime Minister to decide. Great. Glad I spent 1,000 words reaching that conclusion. But it sounded academic and insightful for a while there, didn't it?

Maybe I don't like IR theory because I suck at it.