In official discourse, hardly any initiative or national project is mentioned without talking about “basing on expertise” and ”involving specialists”. Committees are formed, workshops are held, reports are written, and major headlines are presented that suggest the decision was founded on solid scientific bases. But looking at reality, a more pressing question emerges: Were these experts actually part of the decision-making process, or just a formal frame accompanying it?
Often, the problem does not lie in the absence of experts, but in the absence of a genuine will to benefit from them. The expert turns into a “necessary presence”, not an “influential voice”. They are called to be heard, not to be taken seriously, and their notes are recorded but not reflected in the final decision. Here begins the contradiction between form and substance, between what is announced and what is implemented.
In practical reality, we see that some major decisions are pre-formulated, and then a professional cover is sought afterwards. Meetings are held after directions have been determined, and experts are asked to comment within a narrow margin that does not allow revisiting the essence of the project. When an expert raises profound issues that touch the base, they are sometimes seen as unwanted complications, or unwarranted delays, instead of being understood as the core of the work itself.
What's more dangerous is that those making decisions may not possess sufficient knowledge in the field being discussed, which is natural, as no official can be specialized in everything. However, the problem arises when this knowledge gap is not acknowledged, and when expert opinion is treated as an optional choice rather than an indispensable necessity. In this case, the decision loses one of its most important elements of strength: diversity in vision and depth in analysis.
This reflection on reality does not appear immediately, but emerges gradually. A gap begins between the text and the implementation, because the decision was not based on a full understanding of the context. Subsequent instructions appear to correct what was not well studied, then policies are modified frequently, and the system starts revolving in a cycle of continuous remediation rather than stable progression. Over time, the confidence of the executing institutions themselves in the issued decisions declines, because they realize that they are not the product of a real debate.
This approach also reflects on the experts themselves. With repeated experience, a sense that participation is formal and that the effort expended does not reflect on the results forms. This either leads to a gradual withdrawal from participation or to presenting general opinions that do not delve deep because depth is no longer required. Here, the state loses one of its most important tools: specialized knowledge.
In the Jordanian reality, as in many countries, we are not lacking competencies and experience. Universities are filled with researchers, institutions include specialists, and national expertise is accumulated. But the real challenge lies in how this knowledge is employed within the decision-making process. The problem is not the absence of brains, but in the way they are integrated, and whether they are part of the decision or just a witness to it.
The countries that have succeeded in building stable policies were not only those that had the best experts, but those that developed real mechanisms for listening to them and integrating their opinions even when they are inconvenient or require rethinking. Because the real value of expertise does not appear when it confirms what we want, but when it reveals what we do not see.
In the end, no decision, no matter how strong it may seem at the moment, can stand if it was not built on a deep and multidimensional understanding. Decisions crafted by one mind, even if surrounded by dozens of experts, remain limited, because they did not actually benefit from them. However, decisions built on a real dialogue are the ones capable of enduring.
The issue is not the presence of experts, but in recognizing their role. Either they are partners in making the decision, or just decor accompanying it. And in critical matters, the difference between the two is the difference between a system that learns and evolves, and another that silently reproduces its mistakes.
Dr. Hani Al-Dmour
