Gözlemsel Egemenlik: Siyasi Temsiliyet Olarak Algoritmik Gözetim

Abstract

Algoritmik gözetim sistemleri, demokratik müzakereden bağımsız biçimde siyasi otorite taşıyan temsiller üretmekte ve bu yolla siyasi egemenliğin epistemik temellerini dönüştürmektedir. Bu çalışma, söz konusu dönüşümü açıklamak amacıyla “gözlemsel egemenlik” kavramını önermekte ve algoritmik gözetimin nasıl siyasi temsiliyet işlevi gördüğünü soruşturmaktadır. Çin sosyal kredi sistemi, ABD öngörücü adalet algoritmaları, AB biyometrik sınır altyapıları ve pandemi temas takip uygulamaları, teorik çerçeve güdümlü niteliksel belge analizi yöntemiyle karşılaştırmalı kurumsal analiz çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Analiz, tüm sistemlerin rejim türünden ve uygulama alanından bağımsız olarak sürekli gözlem, temsil üretimi ve gözlem-temelli yetkilendirme mekanizmalarını ortak biçimde taşıdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte, otoriter bağlamlarda gözetim pedagojik söylemle açıkça meşrulaştırılırken demokratik bağlamlarda tekno-bilimsel rasyonalite arkasına gizlenmekte; ancak her iki durumda da müzakereci temsiliyet mekanizmaları devre dışı kalmaktadır. Çalışma, gözetim çalışmaları, egemenlik teorisi ve temsiliyet teorisi literatürlerine katkı olarak gözlemsel egemenlik kavramını tanıtırken, otoritenin yönetme hakkından değil bilme gücünden türediği bu egemenlik biçiminin demokratik hesap verebilirlik için doğurduğu sonuçları tartışmaktadır.

Keywords

• Gözlemsel Egemenlik
• Gözetim Çalışmaları
• Epistemik Altyapı
• Siyasi Temsiliyet.

Observational Sovereignty: Algorithmic Surveillance as Political Representation

Abstract

Algorithmic surveillance systems produce representations that carry political authority independent of democratic deliberation, thereby transforming the epistemic foundations of political sovereignty. This study proposes the concept of “observational sovereignty” to theorize this transformation and investigates how algorithmic surveillance functions as political representation. China’s social credit system, US predictive justice algorithms, EU biometric border infrastructures, and pandemic contact tracing applications were examined through comparative institutional analysis using theory-driven qualitative document analysis. The analysis reveals that all systems share the mechanisms of continuous observation, representation production, and observation-based authorization regardless of regime type or domain of application. At the same time, while surveillance is legitimized through explicit pedagogical discourse in authoritarian contexts, it is concealed behind techno-scientific rationality in democratic ones; yet in both cases, deliberative representation mechanisms are rendered inoperative. The study introduces the concept of observational sovereignty as a contribution to surveillance studies, sovereignty theory, and representation theory, and discusses the implications of this form of sovereignty, in which authority derives from the power to know rather than the right to rule, for democratic accountability.

Keywords

• Observational Sovereignty
• Surveillance Studies
• Epistemic Infrastructure
• Political Representation.

References

1. Alkan, E. Ö. (2026). Dijitalleşen toplumun yeni eşitsizlik biçimi: Dijital eşitsizlik ve Türkiye’deki göstergeleri. İmgelem, 18, 151-176. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1836204
2. Amnesty International. (2020). COVID-19: Governments must not ‘sleepwalk into surveillance state’. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/covid-19-governments-must-not-sleepwalk-surveillance-state
3. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., ve Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
4. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
5. Baack, S. (2015). Datafication and empowerment: How the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation, and journalism. Big Data ve Society, 2(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715594634
6. Barocas, S., ve Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104, 671-732. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31
7. Bengio, Y., Janda, R., Yu, Y. W., Ippolito, D., Jarvie, M., Pilat, D., Struck, B., Krastev, S., ve Sharma, A. (2020). The need for privacy with public digital contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Digital Health, 2(7), e342-e344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30133-3
8. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

9. Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., ve Ehret, B. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808326545
10. Butler, J. (2015). Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Harvard University Press.
11. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York University Press.
12. Creemers, R. (2018). China’s social credit system: An evolving practice of control. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175792
13. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Polity Press.
14. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.
15. Desmarais, S. L., ve Singh, J. P. (2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Council of State Governments Justice Center. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Risk-Assessment-Instruments-Validated-and-Implemented-in-Correctional-Settings-in-the-United-States.pdf
16. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110
17. EDPS. (2016). Opinion 06/2016 on the Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’. European Data Protection Supervisor. https://edps.europa.eu
18. EDPS. (2017). Opinion 3/2017 on the Proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS). European Data Protection Supervisor. https://edps.europa.eu
19. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2018). The EU’s new biometric border system threatens fundamental rights. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eus-new-biometric-border-system-threatens-fundamental-rights
20. eu-LISA. (2025). EU finalizes preparations as Entry/Exit System launches October 12. https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/
21. European Commission. (2025). Entry-Exit System. Migration and Home Affairs. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/smart-borders/entry-exit-system_en
22. Fortune. (2019, February 22). China banned 23 million people from traveling last year for poor ‘social credit’ scores. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2019/02/22/china-social-credit-travel-ban/
23. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Orijinal eser 1975)
24. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). Pantheon Books.
25. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. G. Burchell, C. Gordon ve P. Miller (Ed.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality içinde (s. 87-104). Harvester Wheatsheaf.
26. French National Assembly. (2020). StopCovid application. Assemblée Nationale.
27. Government of Singapore. (2020). TraceTogether: Safer together. https://www.tracetogether.gov.sg/
28. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MIT Press.
29. Hall, P. A., ve Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936-957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
30. Hobbes, T. (1651/1996). Leviathan (Revised student edition, R. Tuck, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Orijinal eser1651)
31. Human Rights Watch. (2017). China: Big data fuels crackdown in minority region. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/26/china-big-data-fuels-crackdown-minority-region
32. Hummel, P., Braun, M., ve Dabrock, P. (2021). Own data? Ethical reflections on data ownership. Philosophy ve Technology, 34, 545-572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00404-9
33. Ienca, M., ve Vayena, E. (2020). On the responsible use of digital data to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Medicine, 26(4), 463-464. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0832-5
34. Katzenbach, C., ve Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424
35. Kehya, R. Ö. (2025). Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) in the context of pandemic vulnerability: Analysis of the film, ‘Armutszeugnis Corona’. İmgelem, 16, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1570707
36. Kostka, G. (2019). China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Media ve Society, 21(7), 1565-1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819826402
37. Liang, F., Das, V., Kostyuk, N., ve Hussain, M. M. (2018). Constructing a data-driven society: China’s social credit system as a state surveillance infrastructure. Policy ve Internet, 10(4), 415-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.183
38. Lucivero, F., Hallowell, N., Johnson, S., Prainsack, B., Samuel, G., ve Sharon, T. (2020). COVID-19 and contact tracing apps: Ethical challenges for a social experiment at unprecedented scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e19284. https://doi.org/10.2196/19284
39. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
40. Mahoney, J., ve Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press.
41. Mayson, S. G. (2019). Bias in, bias out. Yale Law Journal, 128(8), 2218-2300. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/bias-in-bias-out
42. Meissner, M. (2017). China’s social credit system: A big-data enabled approach to market regulation with broad implications for doing business in China (China Monitor No. 24). Mercator Institute for China Studies.
43. MIT Technology Review. (2019, March 4). China’s social credit system stopped millions of people from buying travel tickets. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/04/136791/chinas-social-credit-system-stopped-millions-of-people-buying-travel-tickets/
44. Morozov, E., ve Bria, F. (2018). Rethinking the smart city: Democratizing urban technology. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
45. National Public Credit Information Center. (2018). 2018 annual report on social credit system construction. National Development and Reform Commission.
46. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
47. Przeworski, A., ve Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley-Interscience.
48. Ranisch, R., Nijsingh, N., Ballantyne, A., van Bergen, A., Buyx, A., Friedrich, O., Hendl, T., Hurst, S., Rode, S., Strait, M., Ballantyne, J., ve Wild, V. (2021). Digital contact tracing and exposure notification: Ethical guidance for trustworthy pandemic management. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(4), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09596-y
49. Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES). (2017). Official Journal of the European Union, L 327, 20-82.
50. Robert Koch Institute. (2020). Corona-Warn-App. https://www.coronawarn.app/en/
51. Rousseau, J.-J. (1762/1997). The social contract and other later political writings (V. Gourevitch, Ed. ve Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1762)
52. Rouvroy, A. (2013). The end(s) of critique: Data behaviourism versus due process. In M. Hildebrandt ve K. de Vries (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn: The philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology içinde (pp. 143-167). Routledge.
53. Rouvroy, A., ve Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation: Disparateness as a precondition for individuation through relationships? Réseaux, 177(1), 163-196. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163
54. Rowe, F. (2020). Contact tracing apps and values dilemmas: A privacy paradox in a neo-liberal world. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102178
55. Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford University Press.
56. Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Orijinal eser 1922)
57. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
58. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2014). Planning outline for the construction of a social credit system (2014-2020) (State Council Notice No. 21). http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2014-06/27/content_8913.htm
59. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
60. Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. University of Chicago Press.
61. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., ve Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
62. Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a vocation. H. H. Gerth ve C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology içinde (pp. 77-128). Oxford University Press. (Orijinal eser 1919)
63. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.