The Illusion of Expertise and the Epistemic Crisis in Understanding the Middle East

In recent years, Indonesia’s public sphere has been filled with the emergence of young politicians and influencers who speak loudly about the Middle East without a strong data foundation—particularly primary data—and often relying solely on fleeting information from social media streams. With confident rhetorical styles and narratives that touch collective emotions, they appear as if they possess scholarly authority.

This phenomenon may seem at first glance like a healthy form of public participation, but behind it lies a deeply serious problem—the birth of an illusion of expertise rooted in an epistemic crisis in our public discourse.

The phenomenon of politicians and influencers speaking as if they “fully understand geopolitical issues and Middle Eastern conflicts” despite lacking adequate scholarly foundations indicates signs of personal ethical problems. Not only that, it has developed into a structural problem in the production of knowledge in the public sphere.

In the Indonesian context, this issue becomes even more complex because Middle Eastern issues often intersect with religion, identity, and collective emotions. As a result, the narratives that emerge no longer stem from rational analysis but from the mobilisation of sentiments.

The Instant Expert Syndrome in Understanding the Middle East

Yet, the Middle East is not a simple entity that can be understood through a black-and-white lens. This region is a complex historical and geopolitical space, with roots traceable back to the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate and colonial geopolitical engineering through the Sykes-Picot Agreement. From there emerged modern states with political boundaries that often do not reflect the social realities on the ground.

This complexity continues to this day, particularly in contemporary conflicts such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war in Syria, and geopolitical rivalries between regional states. Understanding these dynamics requires serious analytical tools. These include the history of colonialism, energy politics, sectarian rivalries, and interventions by major powers such as the United States and Russia.

However, what occurs in Indonesia’s public sphere is the opposite. Many politicians and influencers reduce this complexity to simple narratives that narrow its meaning. For example, “Islam versus the West”, “oppression versus resistance”, or “global conspiracy”. Such narratives not only simplify reality but also obscure the fact that conflicts in the Middle East involve various actors with clashing interests—from regional organisations like the Arab League to rivalries between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

It is at this point that we witness the emergence of what can be called the instant expert syndrome. The proliferation of “instant experts” cannot be separated from the logic of fast-paced digital media. In this ecosystem, speed is often valued more than accuracy.

With just reading a few popular articles or following viral trends on social media, someone feels sufficiently legitimised to provide geopolitical analysis.

Yet, in the disciplines of International Relations or Middle Eastern studies, understanding is not built instantly but requires a long process, such as reading primary sources, understanding local languages, and mastering theoretical frameworks in geopolitical and international relations discourse, from realism and constructivism to postcolonialism.

Criticism of this phenomenon was once raised by Bagus Muljadi, who emphasised that academics are not “shamans” who can speak without data and methodology. Ironically, in our public sphere, those without scholarly backgrounds often appear more confident than academics who have truly delved into the field.

This confidence does not stem from depth of knowledge but from the logic of social media that prioritises speed and boldness in opinion.

The Politicisation of Middle Eastern Issues and the Crisis of Knowledge Authority

Behind this phenomenon lies another equally important factor: the attention economy. Middle Eastern issues—especially those related to Palestine—have very high mobilising power in Indonesia. These issues touch on emotional aspects as well as religious identity. In electoral politics, this becomes a very enticing opportunity. Politicians exploit it to boost electability, while influencers turn it into content that drives engagement.

In such situations, accuracy is often sacrificed for virality. Narratives are simplified to be easily digestible, emotions are amplified to trigger reactions easily, and facts are selectively chosen to fit certain agendas. The Middle East, which should be the subject of serious study, becomes a commodity in the attention industry.

The impact of this phenomenon does not stop at the discourse level. It creates what can be called structural disinformation. A public lacking adequate geopolitical literacy will absorb biased, even incorrect, information. In the long term, this shapes public opinion not based on reality. Yet, public opinion has a significant influence on policy directions, including foreign policy.

Indonesia, since the Sukarno era, has been known for its active foreign policy tradition based on principles. This approach demands the ability to read global dynamics carefully and rationally. However, when the public sphere is filled with shallow analyses, the pressure on policymakers becomes irrational. Politicians are pushed to take popular positions rather than strategic ones.

Furthermore, the simplification of the Middle East also has the potential to erase the agency of local actors in the region. The conflict in Syria, for example, cannot simply be read as a struggle between “the people versus the regime” but involves multiple actors.