Yapay Zekâ Çağında Demokrasi: Fırsatlar ve Tehditler

Öz

Yapay zekâ alanındaki gelişmeler her alanda etkisini göstermektedir. Yönetim sistemlerinin dönüşümünde de bu etkileri görebilmekteyiz. Demokrasi yüzyıllardır Dünya genelinde var olan ve etkisini de dönüşümü ile birlikte sürekli arttıran bir devlet yönetim modelidir. Demokrasinin halkın katılımına dayanan doğası, kitleleri geniş ölçüde etkileyen yapay zekâ araçlarının gelişiminden etkilenebilmektedir. Yapay zekanın kapsayıcılığı düşünüldüğünde demokrasinin tüm uygulamaları ile bu teknolojiden insanlık yararına hiç olmadığı kadar olumlu neticeler elde etmesinin muhtemel olduğu düşünülebilir. Ancak, yapay zekâ ve sosyal medya devrimi ile daha yaygın hale gelen veri mahremiyeti ve gizlilik ihlalleri, algı ve manipülasyon oyunları, herkesin bu teknolojilerden eşit şekilde yararlanamaması tehlikesi, büyük ve geniş veriyi elinde bulunduran merkeziyetçi yapıların daha oligarşik bir yönetim sergileme ihtimali yapay zekaya olan bakış açısını olumsuz bir beklentiye çevirmektedir. Bu minvalde yapay zekaya demokrasiyi aşılamak insanlık için önemli tercih olarak önümüzde durmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zeka
• Demokrasi
• Katılımcılık
• Veri Mahremiyeti
• Eşitlik

Democracy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Threats

Öz

Developments in the field of artificial intelligence are having an impact in every field. We can also see these effects in the transformation of management systems. Democracy is a state governance model that has existed worldwide for centuries and has been continuously increasing its impact along with its transformation. The nature of democracy based on public participation can be affected by the development of artificial intelligence tools that affect the masses to a large extent. Considering the inclusiveness of artificial intelligence, it can be thought that democracy, together with all its applications, is likely to obtain more positive results than ever for the benefit of humanity from this technology. However, data privacy and confidentiality violations that have become more widespread with the artificial intelligence and social media revolution, perception and manipulation games, the danger of not everyone benefiting from these technologies equally, and the possibility of centralized structures that hold large and extensive data exhibiting a more oligarchic management turn the perspective on artificial intelligence into a negative expectation. In this context, instilling democracy in artificial intelligence stands before us as an important choice for humanity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence
• Democracy
• Participation
• Data Privacy
• Equality

Kaynakça

1. Akpanuko, E. E., and I. E. Asogwa. “Accountability: A Synthesis.” International Journal of Finance and Accounting, vol. 2, no. 3, 2013, pp. 164–173.
2. Alpaydın, Ethem. Yapay Ögrenme. Bogaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, 2011
3. Armstrong, Jeremy, Organized chaos: manipuli, socii, and the Romanarmy c. 300. Romans at war. Routledge, Oxford, 2019, pp. 76–98
4. Ay, M. Jae. “Toplumsal Fayda İçin Kapsayıcı Yapay Zekâ Arayışı: Yapay Zekâyı Daha Kapsayıcı ve Toplum İçin Yararlı Hale Getirmeye Yönelik Katılımcı Yönetişim ve Politika Önerileri.” Public Administration Review, vol. 83, no. 6, 2023, pp. 1496–1505.
5. Bakan, İsmail / Kefe, İlker. “Kurumsal Açıdan Algı ve Algı Yönetimi”. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 2, sy.1, 2012, ss.19-34.
6. Bell, Colin / Newby, Howard. Community Studies: An Introduction to the Socology of the Local Community, London, George Allen&Unwin, 1971.
7. BIC/APPGAI (Big Innovation Centre/All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence). Governance, Social and Organizational Perspective for AI. Big Innovation Centre, 2017. https://biginnovationcentre.com/event_listing_type/appg-ai/
8. Blackburn, Simon. Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 111 who refers to Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Hackett, 1983.

9. Boine, Claire, AI-enabled Manipulation and EU Law, 2021, pp.8
10. Brabham, Daren. Crowdsourcing. MIT Press. 2013.
11. Bovens, Mark. “Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism.” West European Politics, vol. 33, no. 5, 2010, pp. 946–967.
12. Christensen, Henrik. "Boosting Political Trust with Direct Democracy? The Case of the Finnish Citizens’ Initiative." Politics and Governance, vol. 7, no. 2, 2019, pp. 173–186.
13. Corhăneanu, Bogdan-Lazăr. “Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial System - A Threat to Human Rights?” Law Review, special issue, 2022, pp. 91–101.
14. Coren, Stanley / Ward, Lawrence.M / Enns, James.T., Sensation and Perception, Harcourt Brace College Publisers, Harcourt Brace College Publishers,1993.
15. Davenport, Thomas H / Prusak, Laurence. Working Knowledge:how organizations managewhat they know, Harvard Business School Press, 1998, p. 45-60.
16. DeepMind. “Careers.” DeepMind, https://deepmind.google/about/careers/.
17. Dahlberg, Lincoln. “Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions.”, New Media & Society, 13 (6), 2011, p. 855–872.
18. Demirci, Mustafa. "A Metaphor Study on the Concepts of State, Nation and Democracy." HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 12, no. 24, 2024, pp. 49–75.
19. Demirkıran, Özlem, et al. “Demokrasinin Tabana Yayılması, Yönetimde Şeffaflık ve Hesap Verebilirlik Bağlamında Bilgi Edinme Hakkı Kanunu.” Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 3, sy. 2, 2011, ss. 169–192.
20. Elston, Dirk M. “Availability bias and artificial intelligence.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 89, no. 1, 2023, 1-196.
21. Epstein, Robert / Robertson, Ronald E. The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections, vol.112, no. 33, 2015, pp. 12-21. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419828112
22. European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. 8 Apr. 2019, https://www.aepd.es/sites/default/files/2019-12/ai-ethics-guidelines.pdf.
23. Evran Topuzkanamış, Şafak. “Anayasal Demokrasilerde Şeffaflığı Sağlamanın Bir Yolu Olarak Paranın Denetimi ve Yönetimi.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 20, no. 2, Dec. 2018, pp. 213–238.
24. Felzmann, Heike, et al. “Robotlar ve Şeffaflık: Robot Teknolojileri Bağlamında Şeffaflığın Çoklu Boyutları.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, vol. 26, no. 2, 2019, pp. 71–78.
25. Gözler, Kemal. “Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Esasları”, Ekin Yayıncılık, Bursa, 2013.
26. Hague, Barry.N /Loader, Brian D. Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age, Routledge, 2005.
27. Helberger, Natali, et al. “Who Is the Fairest of Them All? Rediscovering the Relationship Between Media Bias and AI.” AI & Society, vol. 35, no. 4, 2020, pp. 931–943
28. Hern, Alex, Cambridge Analytica: how did it turn clicks into votes?, The Guardian, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopherwylie.
29. Holder, Charlotte, et al. “Robotik ve Hukuk: Robotik Çağının Temel Yasal ve Düzenleyici Etkileri (II. Kısım I).” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 32, no. 3, 2016, pp. 383–402.
30. Holmes, Brenton. “Citizens’ Engagement in Policymaking and the Design of Public Services.” Research Paper No. 1, 2021–12, Parliament of Australia, 22 July 2021, accessed 27 Jan. 2021, https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp1112/12rp01.
31. Jiang, Y., X. Li, H. Luo, et al. “Quo Vadis Artificial Intelligence?” Discov Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 4, 2022, pp. 1-19.
32. Johnson, Joseph. “Global Internet Penetration Rate by Region as of April 2021.” Statista, 27 Sept. 2021,
33. Jungherr, Andreas. “Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: A Conceptual Framework.” Social Media + Society, vol. 9, no. 3, 2023, p. 1-14.
34. Kayış, Hasan. H. “Dijital Eşitsizlikleri Yakından İncelemek: Dijital Uçurum Buzdağının Görünen Yüzü Müdür?” Ege Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Yeni Düşünceler Hakemli E-Dergisi, no. 15, 2021, pp. 109–124.
35. Keskin, Fatih. “Temsili Demokrasinin Krizi ve Alternatif Politik Model Arayışı Olarak “5 Yıldız Hareketi”, TBB Dergisi, c. 128, 2017, s. 492.
36. Klayman, Joshua. “Varieties of confirmation bias.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 32, 1995, pp. 385–418.
37. König, Pascal D., and Georg Wenzelburger. “Between Technochauvinism and Human-Centrism: Can Algorithms Improve Decision-Making in Democratic Politics?” European Political Science, vol. 21, 2022, pp. 132-149.
38. Köroglu, Yavuz. Yapay zekâ’nın teorik ve pratik sınırları. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, 2017.
39. Lauret, Julien, Amanzon’s sexist AI recruiting tool: how did it go so wrong?, becominghuman.ai, 2019 https://becominghuman.ai/amazons-sexist-ai-recruiting-tool-how-did-it-go-so-wrong-e3d14816d98e.
40. Lensen, Andrew / Marcin Betkier. “We Built an Algorithm That Predicts the Length of Court Sentences – Could AI Play a Role in the Justice System?” The Conversation, 2022,
41. Levy, Ron, and Graeme Orr. The Law of Deliberative Democracy. Routledge, 2016.
42. Meijer, Albert. “Şeffaflık.” The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, edited by Mark Bovens, Robert E. Goodin, and Thomas Schillema
43. MacPherson C. B. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012.
44. Michels Ank. “Innovations in Democratic Governance: How Does Citizen Participation Contribute to a Better Democracy?” International Review of Administrative Science, vol. 77, no. 2, 2011, pp. 275–293.
45. Nickerson, Raymond. “Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.” Review of General Psychology, vol. 2, 1998, pp. 175–220.
46. Novelli, Claudio/ Giuliano Formisano/ Prathm. Juneja, et al. "Artificial Intelligence for the Internal Democracy of Political Parties." Minds and Machines, vol. 34, no. 1, 2024, p. 2-26.
47. Novelli, Cecilia/ Mariarosaria Taddeo/ Luciano Floridi. “Accountability in Artificial Intelligence: What It Is and How It Works.” AI & Society, 2023, pp. 1–12.
48. Ienca, Marcello. “On Artificial Intelligence and Manipulation”. Topoi, 42, 3, 2023, 833–842.
49. Ohize, H. O., et al. “Blockchain for Securing Electronic Voting Systems: A Survey of Architectures, Trends, Solutions, and Challenges.” Cluster Computing, vol. 28, 2025, p. 132.
50. Reglitz, Marc. “Human Right to Free Internet Access.” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 37, 2020, pp. 314–331.
51. Regulation (EU) 2016/679, General Data Protection Regulation. 2016 O.J. (L 119).
52. Sachith, Mahajan / Jennifer, Gabrys /Armitage, Joanne. “AirKit: a citizen-sensing toolkit for monitoring air quality Sensors.” MDPI Open Access Journal, 21 (12), 2021, p. 4044.
53. Sartor, Giovanni. “Yapay Zekâ ve İnsan Hakları: Hukuk ve Etik Arasında.” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 27, no. 6, 2020, pp. 705–719.
54. Schippers, Bernd. (2020). Yapay Zekâ ve Demokratik Politika. Siyasi Anlayış, 11 (1), 32-35.
55. Steyaert, Jan, and Nigel Gould. “Social Work and the Changing Face of the Digital Divide.” British Journal of Social Work, vol. 39, 2009, pp. 740–753.
56. Surden, Harry. “Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview.” Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 35, 2019. p. 19-22, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3411869
57. Tan, Mei, and Hariharan Subramonyam. “More than Model Documentation: Uncovering Teachers’ Bespoke Information Needs for Informed Classroom Integration of ChatGPT.” Woodstock ’18: ACM Symposium on Neural Gaze Detection, 3–5 June 2018, Woodstock, NY, ACM, pp. 1–25.
58. Thomas, Mike. “7 Dangerous Risks of Artificial Intelligence.” Builtin, 2021. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/risks-of-artificial-intelligence.
59. Türkiye Yapay Zekâ İnisiyatifi (TRAI). Yapay Zekâ Etik İlkeleri ve Hukuki Düzenlemeler Raporu. 2024
60. Oliver, Nuria, “Artifical Intelligence for Social good: The Way Forward.” Institute of Humanity-centric AI (ELLIS Unit Alicante Foundation), 2024, s. 666-707.
61. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 206, 1–44. Art. 6.
62. Rogers, Everett M. “Digital Divide.” Convergence, vol. 7, 2001, pp. 96–111,
63. Sertkaya, İsa, Peter Roenne, and Peter Y. A. Ryan. “Estonian Internet Voting with Anonymous Credentials.” Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, vol. 30, no. 2, 2022, p. 3.
64. Şahnagil, Sinem. “Teknoşovenizm Kıskacında Risk-Fırsat Penceresinden Yapay Zekâ ve Demokrasi İlişkisi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sy. 83, 2025, ss. 232-246
65. Ulnicane, Inga, and Aymen Aden. “Power and Politics in Framing Bias in Artificial Intelligence Policy.” Review of Policy Research, vol. 40, 2023, pp. 665–687
66. Uygun, Oktay. “Hukukun Üstünlüğü İlkesi”. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 19, sy. 3, 2022, 521-558.
67. Vinuesa, Ricardo, et al. “The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, 2020, p. 233.
68. Wachter, Sandra. “Yapay Değişmezlik Teorisi: Ayrımcılık Karşıtı Yasa Kapsamında Algoritmik Grupları Korumak.” arXiv, 2020, arXiv:2205.01166, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2205.01166.
69. Warren, Matthew. “The Digital Vicious Cycle: Links Between Social Disadvantage and Digital Exclusion in Rural Areas.” Telecommunications Policy, vol. 31, 2007, pp. 374–388,
70. Zhang, B., et al. “The AI Personalization–Privacy Paradox: How AI-Powered Recommendation Systems Use Cognitive Biases to Influence User Behavior.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 112, 2020, p. 106449.
71. Zou, James, and Londa Schiebinger. “AI Can Be Sexist and Racist—It’s Time to Make It Fair.” Nature, vol. 559, 2018, pp. 324–326.
72. İNTERNET KAYNAKLARI
73. Adaptive Traffic Control System. Advantech, https://www.advantech.com/en/solutions/intelligent-transportation-systems/adaptive-traffic-control-system. Accessed [date]. Erişim Tarihi: 20.09.2024. A.I. and Equality Report. Equinet Europe, 2020, https://equineteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ai_report_digital.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2024.
74. Cambridge Analytica. Internal Documents Leaked by Whistleblower Bettany Kaiser. https://ia803204.us.archive.org/35/items/ca-docs-with-redactions-sept-23-2020-4pm/FINAL%20Cambridge%20Analytica%20Select%202016%20Campaign%20Related%20Documents%20w%20Redactions_.pdf, p. 398. Erişim Tarihi: 12.09.2024.
75. Harvard Business Review. “How AI Can Help Leaders Make Better Decisions Under Pressure.” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2023, https://hbr.org/2023/10/how-ai-can-help-leaders-make-better-decisions-under-pressure Erişim Tarihi: 15.11.2024.
76. Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Thoersten Thiel. “Yapay Zekâ ve Demokrasi.” Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2024, https://tr.boell.org/tr/2022/01/31/yapay-zekâ-ve-demokrasi. Erişim Tarihi: 10.09.2024. How AI Can Help Leaders Make Better Decisions Under Pressure. Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2023, https://hbr.org/2023/10/how-ai-can-help-leaders-make-better-decisions-under-pressure. Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2024.
77. House Fed. N. of 890414574. vLex, https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/hous-fed-n-of-890414574. Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2024.
78. Macro Poverty Outlook, https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/720441492455091991/mpo-ssa.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 18.12.2024.
79. New York Times. “How AI Shaped Milei’s Path to Argentina Presidency.” The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/world/americas/argentina-election-ai-milei-massa.html. Erişim Tarihi: 15.09.2024.
80. İleri, Serkan. “Demokrasinin Bilişim Devrimi ile İmtihanı.” Toplumsal Düşünce Enstitüsü, http://www.toplumcudusunce.com/demokrasinin-bilisim-devrimi-ile-imtihani/ Erişim Tarihi: 02.11.2024.
81. Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC). “Artificial Intelligence and Privacy: Issues and Challenges.” OVIC, Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2024. https://ovic.vic.gov.au/privacy/resources-for-organisations/artificial-intelligence-and-privacy-issues-and-challenges/.
82. Principle of Democracy, https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/what Erişim Tarihi: 15.09.2024.
83. SITRA. “AI in Social and Health Services.” Sitra, https://www.sitra.fi/en/projects/ai-in-social-and-health-services/#ongoing-projects. Erişim Tarihi: 13.12.2024. Thomson Reuters Foundation. “How AI Shaped Milei’s Path to Argentina Presidency.” Context News, https://www.context.news/ai/how-ai-shaped-mileis-path-to-argentina-presidency. Erişim Tarihi: 01.01.2024.
84. UNICEF. “Frontier Data Network.” UNICEF Data, https://data.unicef.org/resources/frontier-data-network/. Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2024.
85. World Bank. Macro Poverty Outlook. https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/720441492455091991/mpo-ssa.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2024.