Siberokratik Temsil ve Algorasyonalite: Algoritmik Yönetişim Çağında Demokratik Meşruiyeti Yeniden Düşünmek

Abstract

Bu makale, yapay zekâ destekli karar alma sistemlerinin kamu yönetimine entegrasyonunu, yalnızca teknolojik bir yenilik olarak değil, temsili demokrasi, vatandaşlık ve meşruiyet ilkelerini kökten dönüştüren paradigmatik bir kırılma olarak ele almaktadır. Bu dönüşüm, klasik temsil kuramlarının açıklama kapasitesini aşan yapısal bir meşruiyet krizinin belirtisi olarak yorumlanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda literatüre iki özgün kavramsal katkı sunulmaktadır: Siberokratik Temsil ve Algorasyonalite. Siberokratik temsil, demokratik meşruiyetin temel dayanakları olan seçim, rıza ve hesap verebilirlikten yoksun algoritmik sistemlerin kamusal karar alma yetkisiyle donatılmasını ifade eder. Algorasyonalite ise karar süreçlerinin etik, politik ve toplumsal bağlamlardan koparılarak, tamamen veriye dayalı teknik bir rasyonaliteye tabi kılınmasını tanımlar. Çalışma, bu kavramsal çerçeveyi uluslararası örnekler üzerinden temellendirerek, algoritmik yönetişimin temsil, denetim ve hesap verebilirlik normlarını nasıl aşındırdığını göstermektedir. Dijital kamu yönetiminin doğurduğu meşruiyet krizine kavramsal ve normatif düzeyde ışık tutmayı amaçlayan makale, dijital çağda demokratik hesap verebilirlik ilkelerinin yeniden düşünülmesi gerektiğini ileri sürmektedir.

Keywords

• Yapay Zekâ
• Kamu Yönetimi
• Algoritmik Yönetişim
• Siberokratik Temsil
• Algorasyonalite

Cybercratic Representation and Algorationality: Rethinking Democratic Legitimacy in the Age of Algorithmic Governance

Abstract

This article frames the integration of AI-assisted decision-making systems into public administration not merely as technological advancement, but as a paradigmatic shift that reconfigures core principles of democratic legitimacy, political representation, and citizenship. It interprets the rising influence of algorithmic governance as indicative of a structural legitimacy crisis that exceeds the explanatory scope of classical theories of representation. To analyze this transformation, the study introduces two original conceptual contributions: Cybercratic Representation and Algorationality. Cybercratic representation refers to the delegation of decision-making authority to algorithmic systems that are unelected and unaccountable, detached from foundational democratic mechanisms such as elections, consent, and public oversight. Algorationality denotes the displacement of ethical, political, and social considerations in favor of a purely technical rationality governed by quantifiable, data-driven logic. Drawing on international case studies, the article demonstrates how algorithmic governance undermines democratic norms and fosters the emergence of a technocratic regime devoid of representational legitimacy and accountability. By addressing the normative implications of these developments, the study contributes to the conceptual understanding of the legitimacy crisis in digital public administration and calls for a fundamental rethinking of democratic accountability in the context of the algorithmic state.

Keywords

• Artificial Intelligence
• Public Administration
• Algorithmic Governance
• Cybercratic Representation

References

1. ADAMS, Rachel, ADELEKE, Fola, FLORIDO, Ana, DE MAGALHÃES SANTOS, Larissa Galdino, GROSSMAN, Nicolás, JUNCK, Leah and STONE, Kelly (2024), Global Index on Responsible AI 2024, South Africa: Global Center on AI Governance, Canada, https://girai-report-2024-corrected-edition.tiiny.site/ (Date of Access: 28.12.2025).
2. BACH, Jonathan (2020), “The Red and the Black: China’s Social Credit Experiment as a Total Test Environment”, The British Journal of Sociology, S.71(3), ss.489–502, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12748
3. BINNS, Reuben (2018), “Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason”, Philosophy & Technology, S.31, ss.543–556, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5
4. BOVENS, Mark and ZOURIDIS, Stavros (2002), “From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control”, Public Administration Review, S.62(2), ss.174–184, https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
5. BOZDOĞANOĞLU, Burçin (2025), “Kamu Yönetiminde Dijitalleşme Sürecinin Bireylerin İyi Yönetim Hakkına Etkisi: Akıllı Yönetimlerde Yapay Zekâ Teknolojisi Kullanımının Değerlendirilmesi”, Sayıştay Dergisi, S.139, ss.743-770, https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1771754
6. BRAUNSMANN, Katharina, GALL, Korbinian and RAHN, Falk Justus (2022), “Discourse Strategies of Implementing Algorithmic Decision Support Systems: The Case of the Austrian Employment Service”, Historical Social Research, S.47(3), ss.171–201, https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.47.2022.30
7. BRENNAN, Tim, DIETRICH, William and EHRET, Beate (2008), “Evaluating the Predictive Validity of the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment System”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, S.36(1), ss.21–40, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808326545
8. CHAUHAN, Abe (2020), “Towards the Systemic Review of Automated Decision-Making Systems”, Judicial Review, S.25(4), ss.285–295, https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1871714

9. CHENG, Wanyue, CHU, Yusu, XIA, Chenyuan, ZHANG, Boliang, CHEN, Junming, JIA, Mengyan and WANG, Wenxiao (2023), “UrbanGenoGAN: Pioneering Urban Spatial Planning Using the Synergistic Integration of GAN, GA, and GIS”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, S.11, ss.1–13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1287858
10. CLARKE, Roger, MICHAEL, Katina and ABBAS, Roba (2024), “Robodebt: A Socio-Technical Case Study of Public Sector Information Systems Failure”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, S.28, ss.1–42, https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v28.4681
11. DANAHER, John (2016), “The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation”, Philosophy & Technology, S.29(3), ss.245–268, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1
12. DATTA, Krittibas (2024), “AI-Driven Public Administration: Opportunities, Challenges, and Ethical Considerations”, The Social Science Review: A Multidisciplinary Journal, S.2(6), ss.134–139, https://doi.org/10.70096/tssr.240206023
13. DRESSEL, Julia and FARID, Hany (2018), “The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism”, Science Advances, S.4, ss.1–5, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580
14. ENGEL, Christoph, LINHARDT, Lorenz and SCHUBERT, Marcel (2024), “Code is Law: How COMPAS Affects the Way the Judiciary Handles the Risk of Recidivism”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, S.33, ss.383-404, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-024-09389-8
15. ENGELMANN, Severin, CHEN, Mo, FISCHER, Felix, KAO, Ching-Yu and GROSSKLAGS, Jens (2019), “Clear Sanctions, Vague Rewards: How China’s Social Credit System Currently Defines ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Behavior”, Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, ss.69–78, https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287585
16. FOUCAULT, Michel (2007), Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (Trans. Graham Burchell), Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.
17. FOUCAULT, Michel (2008), The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 (Trans. Graham Burchell), Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.
18. GAO, Wanqin (2024), “Digitized Disciplinary System and Social Disenchantment: An Analysis of China’s Social Credit System”, Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, S.76, ss.24–31, https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/76/20241106
19. GEORGE, Alexander L. and BENNETT, Andrew (2004), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge.
20. HABERMAS, Jürgen (2004), The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Trans.Thomas McCarthy,), Polity Press, Cambridge, S.1.
21. HABERMAS, Jürgen (2009), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Trans. William Rehg), Polity Press, Cambridge.
22. HADIYANA, Thomas and JI-HOON, Seo (2024), “AI-Driven Urban Planning: Enhancing Efficiency and Sustainability in Smart Cities”, Information Technology Engineering Journal, S.9(1), ss.23–35, https://doi.org/10.24235/itej.v9i2.124
23. HEATON, Dan, NICHELE, Elena, CLOS, Jeremie and FISCHER, Joel E. (2023), “The Algorithm Will Screw You: Blame, Social Actors and the 2020 A Level Results Algorithm on Twitter”, Plos One, S.18(7), ss.1–29, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288662
24. HUGHES, James (2017), “Algorithms and Posthuman Governance”, Journal of Posthuman Studies, S.1(2), ss.166–184, https://doi.org/10.5325/jpoststud.1.2.0166
25. HWANG, Jin Young (2024), “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Examining Moral Accountability in Autonomous Decision-Making Systems”, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, S.23(3), ss.3192–3198, https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.23.3.2884
26. KARABULUT, Niyazi (2025), “Kamu Yönetiminde Yapay Zekâ Destekli Otomatik Karar Verme Sistemleri: Türkiye Bağlamında Bir Değerlendirme”, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, S.7(1), ss. 151-183, https://doi.org/10.51124/jneusbf.2025.112
27. KATZENBACH, Christian and ULBRICHT, Lena (2019), “Algorithmic Governance”, Internet Policy Review, S.8(4), ss.1–18, https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424
28. KAUN, Anne (2022), “Suing the Algorithm: The Mundanization of Automated Decision-Making in Public Services through Litigation”, Information, Communication & Society, S.25(14), ss.2046–2062, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924827
29. KELLY, Anthony (2021), “A Tale of Two Algorithms: The Appeal and Repeal of Calculated Grades Systems in England and Ireland in 2020”, British Educational Research Journal, S.47(3), ss.725–741, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3705
30. KREPS, Sarah and KRINER, Doug (2023), “How AI Threatens Democracy”, Journal of Democracy, S.34(4), ss.122–131, https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2023.a907693
31. KVKK - KİŞİSEL VERİLERİ KORUMA KURUMU (2024), Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu Faaliyet Raporu 2024, Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu Yayını, Ankara.
32. LANGER, Paul F. (2020), “Lessons from China—The Formation of a Social Credit System: Profiling, Reputation Scoring, Social Engineering”, Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, ss.164–174, https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3396962
33. MARGETTS, Helen and DOROBANTU, Cosmina (2019), “Rethink Government with AI”, Nature, S.568(7751), ss.163–166, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01099-5
34. MATTEUCCI, Stefano Civitarese (2021), “Public Administration Algorithm Decision-Making and the Rule of Law”, European Public Law, S.27(1), ss.103–130, https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021005
35. MIAO, Yulu (2023), “Design of Public Management Security Risk Assessment System Based on Rao Stirling Algorithm”, 2023 International Conference on Data Science and Network Security (ICDSNS), Tiptur, India. ss.1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDSNS58469.2023.10245516
36. MITTELSTADT, Brent Daniel, ALLO, Patrick, TADDEO, Mariarosaria, WACHTER, Sandra and FLORIDI, Luciano (2016), “The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate”, Big Data & Society, S.3(2), ss.1-21, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
37. NOFRIANI, Nofriani (2020), “Machine Learning Application for Classification Prediction of Household’s Welfare Status”, Journal of Information Technology and Computer Engineering, S.4(2), ss.72–82. https://doi.org/10.25077/JITCE.4.02.72-82.2020
38. PASQUALE, Frank (2015), The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
39. PEETERS, Rik and SCHUILENBURG, Marc (2018), “Machine Justice: Governing Security through the Bureaucracy of Algorithms”, Information Polity, S.23, ss.267–280, https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-180074
40. PORTER, Jon (2020), “UK Ditches Exam Results Generated by Biased Algorithm after Student Protests”, The Verge (Online Article), https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/17/21372045/uk-a-level-results-algorithm-biased-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-university-applications (Date of Access: 23.08.2025).
41. RACHOVITSA, Mando and JOHANN, Niclas (2022), “The Human Rights Implications of the Use of AI in the Digital Welfare State: Lessons Learned from the Dutch SyRI Case”, Human Rights Law Review, S.22, ss.1–15, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac010
42. RAGIN, Charles C. (1987), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, University of California Press, Berkeley.
43. RIGGS, Fred W. (1997), “Modernity and Bureaucracy”, Public Administration Review, S.57(4), ss.347–353, https://doi.org/10.2307/977318
44. RINTA-KAHILA, Tapani, SOMEH, Ida, GILLESPIE, Nicole, INDULSKA, Marta and GREGOR, Shirley (2023), “Managing Unintended Consequences of Algorithmic Decision-Making: The Case of Robodebt”, Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, S.14(1), ss.165–171, https://doi.org/10.1177/20438869231165538
45. ROBLES, Pedro and MALLINSON, Daniel J. (2023), “Artificial Intelligence Technology, Public Trust, and Effective Governance”, Review of Policy Research, S.42, ss.11–28, https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12555
46. ROEHL, Ulrik and CROMPVOETS, Joep (2023), “Inside Algorithmic Bureaucracy: Disentangling Automated Decision-Making and Good Administration”, Public Policy and Administration, S.40(2), ss.322–350, https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231197801
47. ROSANVALLON, Pierre (2008), Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
48. SALIH, Hussein Ali, AHMED, Ahmed Shihab and JAMEEL, Jalal Qais (2020), “Development of a Decision Support System for Urban Planning by Using K-means++ Algorithm”, Al-Mustansiriyah Journal of Science, S.31(3), ss.78–88, https://doi.org/10.23851/mjs.v31i3.721
49. SAXENA, Devansh, BADILLO-URQUIOLA, Karla, WISNIEWSKI, Pamela J. and GUHA, Shion (2021), “A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare”, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, S.5(2), ss.1–41, https://doi.org/10.1145/3476089
50. SCOTT, Kristen M., WANG, Sonja Mei, MICELI, Milagros, DELOBELLE, Pieter, SZTANDAR-SZTANDERSKA, Karolina and BERENDT, Bettina (2022), “Algorithmic Tools in Public Employment Services: Towards a Jobseeker-Centric Perspective”, Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Seoul, Republic of Korea, ss.2138–2148, https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3534631
51. URBINATI, Nadia (2006), “Political Representation as a Democratic Process”, Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, S.10(1), ss.18–40, https://doi.org/10.7227/R.10.1.3
52. VAN BEKKUM, Marvin and BORGESIUS, Frederik Zuiderveen (2021), “Digital Welfare Fraud Detection and the Dutch SyRI Judgment”, European Journal of Social Security, S.23(4), ss.323–340, https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627211031257
53. VAN BRUXVOORT, Xadya and VAN KEULEN, Maurice (2021), “Framework for Assessing Ethical Aspects of Algorithms and Their Encompassing Socio-Technical System”, Applied Sciences, S.11(3), ss.1–29, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112311187
54. WEBER, Max (1978), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, University of California Press, Berkeley.
55. WEBER, Max (2004), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Routledge Press, London.
56. WILLIAMS, Rebecca (2022), “Rethinking Administrative Law for Algorithmic Decision Making”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, S.42(2), ss.468–494, https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab032
57. YEUNG, Karen (2018), “Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation”, Regulation & Governance, S.12(4), ss.505–523, https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158
58. ZEJNILOVIC, Leid, LAVADO, Susana, DE RITUERTO DE TROY, Íñigo Martínez, SIM, Samantha and BELL, Andrew (2020), “Algorithmic Long-Term Unemployment Risk Assessment in Use: Counselors’ Perceptions and Use Practices”, Global Perspectives, S.1(1), ss.1–14, https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12908
59. ZHAO, Pengcheng (2023), “Artificial Intelligence in Public Security Administrative Law Enforcement and its Risk Regulation”, 3rd International Conference on Smart Generation Computing, Communication and Networking (Smart Gencon), Bangalore, India, ss.1–3, https://doi.org/10.1109/SMARTGENCON60755.2023.10442404
60. ZOU, Sheng (2021), “Disenchanting Trust: Instrumental Reason, Algorithmic Governance, and China’s Emerging Social Credit System”, Media and Communication, S.9(2), ss.140–149, https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i2.3806