Can AI and the rule of law return oligarchy to democracy?

The 27th in the series of Symi democracy conferences organized by former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou was held on the Greek island of Skiathos between 13-17 July. The symposium with the theme “Is there hope for democracy”, to which I was invited due to our presentation of the Better Judiciary Association’s “Turkish Judicial Reform from A to Z” proposals and studies at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, was named Pandora’s Paradox.
The symposium, where Ekrem İmamoğlu’s letter was read and applauded, was attended by current or former politicians, experts, academics, and some young people from Africa, Europe, the United Nations, the European Union, and the Balkans. New generation problems, such as the rise of oligarchy while democracy is declining, the symbiotic relationship between powerful business people and governments, the accountability of the ruling class in protecting democracy, the importance of the rule of law and an independent judiciary, and how artificial intelligence can strengthen participation in democracies, were discussed in relation to ancient views.
It was discussed that the double standards that Europe has fallen into by not standing behind the values it defends in Ukraine, Gaza, and similar international issues will lead to Europe’s decline and loss of power.

Oligarchy in democracies

Oligarchy, in which the will of the people is suppressed in democracies and the interests of the few are prioritized over those of the people, occurs when the huge political and economic power that society collectively generates is concentrated over time in the hands of a small group of elites, such as politicians, bureaucrats, the rich or powerful families. Oligarchy occurs through economic inequalities, corruption, weakening of institutions or manipulation of the political process by elites. It is not correct to speak of democracy where oligarchy, which is the common problem of different administrative systems, is dominant.

Oligarchy in liberal democracy

In liberal democracies, oligarchy usually occurs when economic power translates into political influence. When the rich influence policy through lobbies, campaign finance or media control, this leads to a form of oligarchy in which the rich influence governance. In the USA, the ultra-rich are free to make unlimited donations to political campaigns, allowing them to influence elections and legislation, ensuring that state policies reflect the interests of wealthy elites, eroding democracy and concentrating political and economic power in a small group.

Oligarchy in socialist states

In socialist states, oligarchy is often created by the rise of bureaucratic elites or power centres within the party. Ruling elites gain privileges and centralise power. In Venezuela, for example, the system that began with Hugo Chavez’s promise to distribute oil resources to the people has evolved into an oligarchic structure under Nicolás Maduro. The new wealthy class of military and party elites concentrated power by controlling resources and elections became a formality.

Oligarchy under communism

In communist systems, which began with the ideal of a classless and equal society and the claim of “people’s democracies” in practice, oligarchy is formed when party elites seize power. The communist system in the Soviet Union, which started with Lenin’s revolution, turned into an oligarchic structure under Stalin, with the upper echelon of the Communist Party (Politburo) controlling politics and the economy. After the 1991 collapse, the old elites turned into new oligarchs. In China, an oligarchy was created by the domination of a small group (the Central Committee) within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). China’s one-party system, despite its claim to democracy, concentrates power in a small number of leaders within a party with over 100 million members.

Since Plato and Aristotle

The famous philosophers of antiquity, Plato and his student Aristotle, who I learnt at the symposium that there were more than 300 democracies in the Mediterranean basin, proposed measures to prevent the problem of oligarchy in democracies. While Plato proposed aristocracy against oligarchy, Aristotle advocated balancing the danger of democracy turning into tyranny with oligarchy and strengthening it with the rule of law.
While Plato advocated a combination of laws, wisdom, and virtue that would ensure justice for the ideal state and force rulers to act in the interest of right, Aristotle argued that law should be dominant in the state, that impartial (and independent) and virtuous judges could ensure justice, and that the rule of law would strengthen democracy.

Plato’s wisdom

Plato, whom Islamic scholars call sublime and divine (Aflatun al-ilahi), argues that the excessive promise of freedom and equality in democracy, in which the people freely participate in governance, can lead to disorder, that demagogues and populists can easily corrupt democracy and turn it into tyranny, and that a popular leader can establish an authoritarian regime by manipulating the democratic system. Criticising democracy as a system that surrenders to the views of the majority, he proposes an aristocracy ruled by philosopher kings, thinking that only knowledgeable and virtuous people who seek the truth can rule society fairly.
Plato thinks that democracies can evolve into oligarchies and oligarchies into tyrannies with the greed of the rich for money and power, but oligarchies will turn into democracies with the rebellion of the poor. He argues that laws are necessary for the ideal city (state); that laws, combined with the rule of philosopher-kings, will compel rulers for the benefit of the people, that law will prevent corruption by protecting courage and justice, and that judgment will promote virtue and harmony.

Aristotle’s arguments

According to Aristotle, a disciple of Plato, whom Islamic scholars call the First Teacher (al-muallim al-awwal), democracy is one of the best possible forms of government. According to Aristotle, who defined democracy as the rule of the majority, democracy is good and balanced when the middle class dominates. In the extreme domination of the poor, democracy is bad and leads to chaos. Emphasizing the risks of populism, which argues that popular participation in governance creates collective wisdom, and the danger of democracy turning into tyranny, Aristotle advocates balancing democracy with oligarchy and strengthening it with the rule of law. Aristotle thinks that the rich can manipulate political processes, that injustice can lead to oligarchy or tyranny, and that justice (the equality and common good of the people) should be ensured by the judiciary.

Is Türkiye a democracy or an oligarchy?

The idealistic cadres who founded our republic by winning the War of Independence under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who endeavoured not to gain power for themselves but to rapidly develop and develop the people who were already economically backward due to capitulations and who had lost what they had during the war, can be compared to Plato’s description of “Wise Kings”.

Bloom between the 1940s and 1990s

It can be said that in the 50 years from the 1940s, when the Second World War prevailed, to the 1990s, when the state largely withdrew from the economy after the transition to a free market economy with the 24 January 1980 decisions, politicians became the distributors of economic power in the country.
In this period, the relations between the ruling class of politicians and those who try to gain economic power and become rich within the framework determined by them have to be tight by nature. As a matter of fact, the relationship between the increasingly wealthy and the politicians and tutelage institutions that determine state policies has fluctuated in parallel with and according to the votes received by the politicians from the electorate and the seats they obtained in the parliament.

Oligarchic political parties

On the other hand, there is a large number of academic works on the undemocratic nature of the law on political parties, which determines who will be the central and local administrators, and that party administrators remain in the hands of a small elite group through the abuse of leader sultanate, central administration powers and the archaic delegation system. In an environment where the political parties that distribute the economic wealth in the country are oligarchic, it is imperative to conclude that a small group dominates political and economic power in Türkiye and that in this environment an oligarchy consisting mainly of politicians and businesspeople has been formed.

Decline of the judiciary

After the 1960 coup d’état, a judiciary system was established that was considerably more independent than before, but since 1980, judges’ guarantees have regressed even further than before 1950, all state powers have been concentrated in the hands of the president after the 2017 referendum, and the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CoJP) has become almost an extension of the executive, and the judiciary has largely lost its ability to limit politicians in the public interest. Although there is a well-functioning administrative judiciary and a Constitutional Court whose judgements are binding on all, it is not effective. For example, the Constitutional Court’s ability to review the constitutionality of laws is dependent on oligarchic groups filing cancellation cases. The function of the administrative judiciary is essentially to perfect the compliance of executive actions with laws that may be unconstitutional. The judiciary’s fight against corruption depends on politicians at the highest level authorising an investigation.

Unrestrained oligarchy

To put it briefly: the judicial system, in its current form, does not have the power to balance this oligarchy with the rule of law as described by Aristotle.
The change of the Central Bank governor and the unscientific reduction of the policy interest rate and the transfer of wealth to the wealthy through Currency Protected Deposit Accounts, which impoverish the wage earners and pensioners by spiking inflation, are events that the judiciary cannot prevent because it is not fully independent from the executive and is not competent.
The judiciary does not have the authority to intervene in the transfer of the added value created to big business people by not establishing a system that enables the public to participate in large infrastructure investments and get a share of the value created.
Likewise, by means of arbitrary decisions such as the zoning of agricultural lands, zoning precedent increases, which the judiciary cannot intervene in; the politicians create wealthy people loyal to themselves, and in return, they obtain legitimate and illegitimate gains.
In this environment, which makes corruption between the two main elements of the oligarchy, politicians and business people, almost obligatory, the fight against corruption is very weak, and it is impossible for the judiciary, whose hands are tied with investigation permits, to fight corruption effectively.

Kenya and Romania are better than Türkiye

During the symposium, I had the opportunity to compare our countries in terms of judicial organization, recruitment, security, independence, and impartiality of judges and prosecutors with the security advisor of the Kenyan government, whom I met during the symposium. Seeing that Kenya, which has a permanent judicial reform committee, has a judicial appointments commission in charge of appointing judges and prosecutors that is more advanced than the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CoJP) broke my prejudices about Kenya.
I learnt from the former justice minister of Romania, which, on the advice of the European Union, created an Italian-inspired Supreme Council of Judges (SCoJ) with a name similar to the CoJP in Türkiye, that Romania has serious problems with the SCoJ, but that this is much better than the worse old system in which the justice minister was the president of the CoJP as in Türkiye.

Can AI return democracy?

The most influential panel of the symposium was about how AI can strengthen participatory democracy. I knew that there are systems that use artificial intelligence to inform every voter, identify their preferences and the issues they are not interested in, but I have just learnt that these systems have evolved into moderation similar to search conferences that collect and filter the preferences of tens of thousands of people and enable collective and effective decision-making in a short time.
For example, it is possible to involve all of the residents of Istanbul through artificial intelligence in deciding whether a plot of land in Istanbul should be a shopping centre, a residence, or a recreation area, and to make the best and most satisfactory decision collectively in a few days with the preferences, wisdom, and votes of everyone.
This technology can be easily implemented in the e-government system that we already use for many public services. For example, thanks to this technology, it is easily possible to solve the two main problems that cause oligarchy in political parties: (i) delegation and (ii) actively involving the grassroots of political parties in party management, and (iii) preventing arbitrary decision-making by executives. It is also possible to use it to ensure public participation in the laws to be enacted by the Parliament.

Participatory democracy and AI

As a matter of fact, in the semi-direct democracy model in Switzerland, artificial intelligence-based platforms make public initiatives more effective by analyzing citizens’ referendum proposals. Similarly, in the example of “Citizen Assemblies” in Ireland, artificial intelligence synthesizes different views, paving the way for inclusive discussions and making decision-making processes transparent. Such artificial intelligence technologies strengthen participatory democracy and public debate by enabling the public to take an active role in governance.
Artificial intelligence, which enables access to the information that humanity has accumulated so far within seconds, can also be used for malicious purposes. In order to ensure that artificial intelligence is used for good purposes, as Aristotle advocated, we need the rule of law, an independent, effective, and efficient judiciary, and wise and competent judges to balance and strengthen democracy against oligarchy.

The accountability of the judiciary

However, as underlined at the symposium in Skiathos, first and foremost, we need to ensure the accountability of the judiciary and its members, who will undertake this critical task, and we need to be sure that they, in turn, will ensure the accountability of the administration and the oligarchy. Only then can we realize Aristotle’s ideal that “in a democracy, law, not man, should rule”.