Definitions Deconstructed
Chatham House Rule
S. G. Lacey
Definition:
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. [REF]
Deconstruction:
Not to be confused with the similar sounding 1985 John Irving novel, and 1999 movie adaption “Cider House Rules”, this terminology falls squarely in the realm of fact as opposed to fiction. Also, this phrase is explicitly singular, despite many misspelled plural forms found online.
The Chatham House Rule, formalized back in 1927, did not change at all in verbiage from that original penning until a slight tweak to modernize the text in 1992, then again in 2002. Modern English professors are real sticklers for correct grammar.
The concept spawned out of a realization that an atmosphere of absolute trust and brutal honesty is necessary to facilitate effective conversation between individuals who are very diverse in nationality, education, and aspiration.
This system is now utilized globally to encourage open dialogue and idea inclusivity during any type of meeting, especially when sensitive, secret, or sketchy material is being discussed. Not surprisingly, considering the international reach, this rubric has been translated into numerous languages.
The bullet point list below highlights the benefits of a congregation operated under Chatham House Rule.
Provides a comfortable discussion setting.
Can address delicate topics freely.
Candid conversation and open feedback.
Breaks down stereotype barriers.
Generates mutual trust amongst participants.
No hierarchy of corporate power dynamics.
Allows presentation of multiple perspectives.
Separates individual and institutional stances.
Maintain information source anonymity.
More efficiently reach a resolution.
Resolve complex problems.
As with any governance structure, there are inherent downsides. In the case of Chatham House Rule, it becomes difficult to reference sources, verify facts, and ensure accountability. As a result, this meeting scheme must be utilized in the right context, with the right players, to minimize misuse.
This format can be agreed on beforehand, or induced during a gathering, typically right at the beginning, to avoid any confusion on protocols. In either case, all parties present must be in agreement, as a lone dissenter can completely ruin the confidentiality.
Unlike a passing comment not to share these details, or morally implied privacy, evoking Chatham House Rule is a verbally binding contract between all participants. While this spoken contract is not legally enforceable, those who break the code of honor are typically eliminated from future discussion on sensitive topics.
A sound scheme, but who’s the entity responsible for creating this governance concept?
The Chatham House in an actual physical structure, located at 10 St. James Square in London, U.K., as it has been for the entire existence of the operation, that was founded in 1922. Granted, a few contemporary amenity upgrades have been made to the facility, which is now over a century old.
Also, Chatham House is a real organization, defining itself as an independent policy institute. While similar, more modern, entities are labelled as research organizations, academic forums, or think tanks, Chatham House was the original setting for independent thought on weighty societal topics.
However, neither the residence or the group must be involved to invoke the meeting conditions known simply as the “Rule” in some circles.
The Chatham House concept was conceived in 1919, coming out of the Paris Peace Conference, held at the end of World War I. Proposed by British diplomat Lionel Curtis, the initial initiative was to foster international collaboration, in pursuit of solving complex interconnected problems, and thus avoid future worldwide conflicts.
The early crew, based in London, composed of authors, diplomats, historians, philosophers, researchers, and scholars, published their first public treatise in 1922, in what the founders dubbed “The Journal of International Affairs”. This extensive annual survey of the geopolitical landscape continues to be compiled by the team to this day, but has transitioned from print to digital form to enable global distribution.
During the 1920’s and 1930’s, the original collaborative concept gained popularity, with ancillary branches forming on the continents of North America, Africa, and Asia over the following decade. Spirited debate and radical policy proposals personified this early era of the Chatham House principles.
After World War II, the Chatham House served a very important role in shaping future international policy. In additional to providing research insights from within, several key members of the cult moved on to influential posts within the United Nations and International Monetary Fund, a pair of newly created organizations which still serve as the background for global relations. The progressive policies debated at Chatham House soon spawned and spread worldwide.
Understandably, considering the Chatham House mission statement, this association has played an important role in analyzing essentially every major issue influencing Planet Earth over the past 75 years: European Reconstruction, Cold War Communication, African Oppression, Middle East Religion, Iraq War, Terrorist Attacks, International Law, Oil Embargo Shock, Nuclear Plant Disasters, Climate Change, Globalization, Brexit, Ocean Pollution.
Not surprisingly, the official Chatham House in London has played host to some of history’s most influential figures over the years.
One of this lodge’s original visitors, Mahatama Ghandi, beautifully summed up the essence of the Chatham House mission in the following quote from his 1931 speech to attendees there.
“The best way of arriving at the solution to any problem,
political or social, is for the protagonists of rival views to meet one another,
and talk things out with sincerity and candor.”
Countless global leaders, ranging from David Ben-Gurion of Isreal, to Konrad Adenauer of West Germany, to King Hussein of Jordan, to Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom, to Nelson Mandela of South Africa, have spoken at Chatham House, either before, during, or after their privileged posts of political leadership.
It’s also important to note that Chatham House has served as a welcome voice for many influential female scholars, especially in recent decades. The core tenants of inclusivity and diversity have allow novel voices and ideas that were previously suppressed to see the light of day.
Not surprisingly, Queen Elizabeth II had a very close connection with Chatham House throughout her entire lengthy rein of England. She became the firm’s official patron shortly after her 1953 coronation, and frequently received intelligence and insight from organizational participants. The internal Academy for Leadership and the Next Generation, which aims to help educate aspiring young political science students, now bears her name.
The format of Chatham House dialogue and discussion enables expression of alternative perspectives which would not be comfortable, or even possible, to express in other forums. Rather than being a developed world first, liberal leaning, common discord forum, innovative acolytes coming through this track have presented compelling, and often controversial, commentary on variety of risqué geopolitical topics.
There are other similar, but distinctly different, formats for executing a confidential gathering. Most strict is the Vegas Rule, title derived from the City of Sin, where everything discussed in the meeting is sacrosanct, and can never leave the room, or be shared by anyone in attendance. This is the most restrictive form of governance; essentially the meeting never happened in the minds of all participants.
“Off the record”, common in journalistic parlance, states that any interview content will not be traced back to the speaker, directly or indirectly. As a result, this conversational agreement is analogous, but relies more heavily on assumptive logic, than Chatham House proceedings, where the discussion content can be shared publicly, just not attributed to a specific individual.
This approach is very common for individuals in the media to avoid disclosing their confidential sources, providing protection for both the talker and listener. Such verbiage is common in movies, especially those dealing with legal and governance topics.
There are many administrative organizations that incorporate Chatham House Rule for key deliberations, including the American Meteorological Society, Bilderberg Group, and the European Banking Commission. Apparently, some of the best educated, deeply connected, and well financed organizations of the modern era find this system valuable as a means of controlled debate.
An analysis on meeting etiquette would not be complete without exploring how Chatham House Rule applies to online discourse.
The internet is a completely different connectivity realm, unfettered, unfiltered, and unpredictable. Thus, additional precautions must be made to ensure true Rule adherence. Below is a list of tips for executing Chatham House protocols over the web.
Keep the meeting attendance list blind copied, with only a single organizer.
Focus on sharing important content generally, rather than highlighting individual identities.
Establish clear boundaries in the digital space, with enforceable actions if rules are breached.
The vastness of the internet enables diversity of views, which is desirable, but also attracts many bad actors, which can be detrimental.
Use a secure online hosting platform; this is relevant for any interaction where confidential material is being shared.
Interestingly, in this era on ubiquitous connectivity, the Chatham House Rule can even be applied to the social media landscape. Many folks adopt discrete web-based monikers which allow them to post at will with relative anonymity. Random profile names. VPN computer location masking. Voice manipulation over speakers. All these tools are available to savvy technology users.
It’s amazing how differently some people behave online as opposed to in person. It’s important to maintain a consistent persona of dignity and respect, regardless of the communication medium used. Chatham House Rule is a way to promote inclusivity of thought, not manipulation of others.
However, one’s online profile is only as safe at the participant’s ability to protect it, or the hackers prowess to discover it. The concept of being “doxed” in now synonymous with exposing one’s internet identity; this can be as dangerous in the digital realm as it is with spies undercover in real life.
In this era of increasing societal polarization, it’s crucial to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, without being canceled or audited by the wider consensus. From the orphanage to the orchard, everyone deserves equitable governance. Which is exactly what the Chatham House Rule aims to enable.
Details: