Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon ve Rotasyon Sistemi)

Year 2022, Volume: 14 Issue: 1, 1 - 26, 31.07.2022

Coşkun Can Aktan

Abstract

Episto-Kleros özellikle yöneticilik makamında bulunacak olan kamu görevlilerinin liyakat ilkesi esas alınarak kura ile rastgele belirlenmesini ve seçildiği makamda sınırlı bir süre görev yapmasını öngören bir sistemdir. Bu sistem en geniş çerçevede siyasi liderlerin, temsilcilerin ve önemli makamlarda bulunan üst düzey kamu görevlilerinin seçiminde uygulanabilecek olan bir yöntemdir. Kura ile rastgele seçim sistemi sortisyon adı ile de bilinmektedir. Sortisyon yönteminin ayrılmaz parçası ise rotasyondur. Liyakat havuzunda kura ile seçilen yönetici o makamda belirli bir süre ve dönem görev yapar ve sonra o görevinden ayrılır.

Keywords

Episto-Kleros Epistokrasi Meritokrasi Liyakat

References

  • Aktan, C.C. 2017. Demokrasi Eleştirisi ve Demarşi, Ankara: Orion.
  • Aktan, C.C. 2020. Davranışsal Politik İktisat, Konya: Litera Türk Yayıncılık.
  • Aktan. C.C. 2021. Demokrasi'ye Alternatif: Demarşi (İki Farklı Demarşi Önerisi: Anayasal Demarşi ve Sortisyonel Demarşi) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348834971_DEMOKRASI'YE_ALTERNATIF_DEMARSI_Iki_Farkli_Demarsi_Onerisi_Anayasal_Demarsi_ve_Sortisyonel_Demarsi
  • Aktan, C.C. ve S.Yay, 2021a. Meritokrasi ve Epistokrasi, İzmir: SOBİAD Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Yayınları.
  • Aktan, C. C. & Yay, S., 2021b. “Demarşi, Sortisyon ve Rotasyon -Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Seçimi ve Atanmasında Kura İle Rastgele Seçim (Sortisyon) ve Görev Süresi Sınırlaması (Rotasyon): Fayda ve Maliyet Analizi-“, Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13 (2): 228-259.
  • Anderson, E. 2008. An Epistemic Defense of Democracy: David Estlund’s Democratic Authority. Episteme 5 (1): 129-139.
  • Beckman, L. 2008. Who Should Vote? Conceptualizing Universal Suffrage in Studies of Democracy. Democratization 15(1): 29-48.
  • Beckman, L. 2014. Democracy and the Right to Exclusion. Res Publica 20(4): 395-411.
  • Besson, S. & José L.M. (eds) 2006. Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Bohman, J. 2006. Deliberative Democracy and the Epistemic Benefits of Diversity. Episteme 3 (3): 175-191.
  • Brennan, J. 2014. Epistocracy Within Public Reason. In: Philosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century, eds. A. E. Cudd and S. J. Scholz, 191–204. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  • Brennan, J. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Brennan, J. 2018. Does The Demographic Objection To Epistocracy Succeed? Res Publica 24(1): 53–71.
  • Brennan, J. 2011. The Right To A Competent Electorate. Philosophical Quarterly 61: 700–724.
  • Brennan, J. 2009. Polluting the Polls: When Citizens Should Not Vote. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87(4): 535-549.
  • Bishop, J. 1970. The Cleroterium. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 90, 1-14.
  • Chaum, D. 2012. Random-Sample Elections (Far Lower Cost, Better Quality And More Democratic), https://rsvoting.org/whitepaper/white_paper.pdf
  • Cohen, J. 1986. An Epistemic Conception of Democracy. Ethics 97 (1): 26-38.
  • Dow, S. 1939. Aristotle, the Kleroteria, and the Courts. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 50: 1–34
  • Dowlen, O. 2009. The Political Potential of Sortition: A Study Of The Random Selection Of Citizens For Public Office (Sortition and Public Policy), Exeter: Imprint Academic.
  • Estlund, D. 2003. Why Not Epistocracy? In: Reshotko, N (ed.) Desire, Identity, and Existence: Essays in Honor of T.M. Penner. Kelowna, BC, Canada: Academic Printing and Publishing, pp.53–69.
  • Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Fishkin, J. S. 2018. Random Assemblies For Lawmaking? Prospects And Limits. Politics & Society, 46(3), 359–379.
  • Flanigan, B., Gölz, P., Gupta, A., & Procaccia, A.D. 2020. Neutralizing Self-Selection Bias İn Sampling For Sortition. Arxiv, Abs/2006.10498.
  • Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
  • Gibbard, A. 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result". Econometrica. 41 (4): 592–593.
  • Goodin, R.E., and J. C. Lau. 2011. Enfranchising Incompetents: Suretyship and The Joint Authorship Of Laws. Ratio 24(2): 154-166.
  • Grimmett, G. 2004. Stochastic Apportionment. The American Mathematical Monthly, 111(4):299– 307, 2004.
  • Guerrero, A. A. 2014. Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42: 135–78.
  • Gunn, P. 2019. Against Epistocracy. Critical Review 31(1): 26–82.
  • Headlam-Morley, J. W. 1933. Election by lot at Athens. Cambridge: The University Press. (first published in 1891).
  • Holst, C. 2012. What is Epistocracy?, In: Sacred Science?, edited by Lund-Olsen Øyen S.A. and Vaage N.S. T., Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
  • Jeffrey, A. 2018. Limited Epistocracy and Political Inclusion. Episteme 15(1): 412–432.
  • Klocksiem, J. 2019. Epistocracy is A Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing. The Journal of Ethics 23(1): 19–36.
  • Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2012. Estlund on Epistocracy: A Critique. Res Publica 18 (3): 241–58.
  • List, C., and R. E. Goodin. 2001. Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing The Condorcet Jury Theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3): 277-306.
  • López-Guerra, C. 2011. The Enfranchisement Lottery. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 10. Pp. 211–33.
  • Lote, S. 2013. Selection by Lot & Its Ancient Greek Origins. Online Erişim: https://counter-currents.com/2013/06/lot-and-its-ancient-greek-origins/
  • Mill, J.S. 1977. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX - Essays on Politics and Society Part II, ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by Alexander Brady (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977).bkz. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/robson-the-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-volume-xix-essays-on-politics-and-society-part-2#lf0223-19_label_211
  • Mill, J.S. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government, (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958 [1861]), 154-55.
  • Min, J. B. 2015. Epistocracy and Democratic Epistemology, Politics in Central Europe, Vol. 11, No. 1.
  • Moraro, P. 2018. Against Epistocracy. Social Theory and Practice, 44(2), 199-216.
  • Mulligan, T. 2015. On the Compatibility Of Epistocracy and Public Reason. Social Theory and Practice 41(3): 458–476.
  • Mulligan, T. 2018. Plural Voting For The Twenty-First Century. The Philosophical Journal 68(271): 286–306.
  • Munn, N.J. 2012. Capacity Testing The Youth: A Proposal For Broader Enfranchisement. Journal of Youth Studies 15(8): 1048-1062.
  • Munn, N.J. 2013. Capacity-Testing As A Means Of Increasing Political Inclusion. Democratization 21(6): 1134-1152.
  • Munn, N.J. 2016. Against The Political Exclusion Of The Incapable. Journal Of Applied Philosophy.
  • Platon, 2008. Devlet, (çev. S. Eyüboğlu & M. A. Cimcoz), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  • Owen, D., & Smith, G. 2018. The Circumstances of Sortition. https://ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/929-utopias-2018/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Owen-and-Smith-PS-special-issue-on-Sortition.pdf
  • Rhodes, P.J. 2012. Kleroterion. In: The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (eds R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner).
  • Saran, R. and N. Tumennasan.2020. Whose Opinion Counts? Implementation By Sortition. Games And Economic Behavior, 78:72–84, 2013. Sewell, R.; MacKay, D.; McLean, I. 2009. "Probabilistic Electoral Methods, Representative Probability, And Maximum Entropy". Voting Matters. 26: 22.
  • Somin, I. 2019. The Promise and Peril of Epistocracy, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy (Symposium on Jason Brennan, Against Democracy), (pre-publication version), Forthcoming, George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 19-15,
  • Stone, P. ed. 2011a. Lotteries in Public Life: A Reader, Exeter: Imprint Academic
  • Stone, P. 2011b. Luck of the Draw, The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Thorley, J. 1996. Athenian Democracy. London, Routledge.
  • Tremmel, J. and J. Wilhelm. 2015. “Democracy or Epistocracy? Age as a Criterion of Voter Eligibility.” In Youth Quotas and Other Efficient Forms of Youth Participation in Ageing Societies, 125–47. Springer, Cham.
  • Zeckhauser, R. 1973. "Voting Systems, Honest Preferences and Pareto Optimality". American Political Science Review. 67 (3): 938–940.

Year 2022, Volume: 14 Issue: 1, 1 - 26, 31.07.2022

Coşkun Can Aktan

Abstract

References

  • Aktan, C.C. 2017. Demokrasi Eleştirisi ve Demarşi, Ankara: Orion.
  • Aktan, C.C. 2020. Davranışsal Politik İktisat, Konya: Litera Türk Yayıncılık.
  • Aktan. C.C. 2021. Demokrasi'ye Alternatif: Demarşi (İki Farklı Demarşi Önerisi: Anayasal Demarşi ve Sortisyonel Demarşi) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348834971_DEMOKRASI'YE_ALTERNATIF_DEMARSI_Iki_Farkli_Demarsi_Onerisi_Anayasal_Demarsi_ve_Sortisyonel_Demarsi
  • Aktan, C.C. ve S.Yay, 2021a. Meritokrasi ve Epistokrasi, İzmir: SOBİAD Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Yayınları.
  • Aktan, C. C. & Yay, S., 2021b. “Demarşi, Sortisyon ve Rotasyon -Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Seçimi ve Atanmasında Kura İle Rastgele Seçim (Sortisyon) ve Görev Süresi Sınırlaması (Rotasyon): Fayda ve Maliyet Analizi-“, Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13 (2): 228-259.
  • Anderson, E. 2008. An Epistemic Defense of Democracy: David Estlund’s Democratic Authority. Episteme 5 (1): 129-139.
  • Beckman, L. 2008. Who Should Vote? Conceptualizing Universal Suffrage in Studies of Democracy. Democratization 15(1): 29-48.
  • Beckman, L. 2014. Democracy and the Right to Exclusion. Res Publica 20(4): 395-411.
  • Besson, S. & José L.M. (eds) 2006. Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Bohman, J. 2006. Deliberative Democracy and the Epistemic Benefits of Diversity. Episteme 3 (3): 175-191.
  • Brennan, J. 2014. Epistocracy Within Public Reason. In: Philosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century, eds. A. E. Cudd and S. J. Scholz, 191–204. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  • Brennan, J. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Brennan, J. 2018. Does The Demographic Objection To Epistocracy Succeed? Res Publica 24(1): 53–71.
  • Brennan, J. 2011. The Right To A Competent Electorate. Philosophical Quarterly 61: 700–724.
  • Brennan, J. 2009. Polluting the Polls: When Citizens Should Not Vote. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87(4): 535-549.
  • Bishop, J. 1970. The Cleroterium. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 90, 1-14.
  • Chaum, D. 2012. Random-Sample Elections (Far Lower Cost, Better Quality And More Democratic), https://rsvoting.org/whitepaper/white_paper.pdf
  • Cohen, J. 1986. An Epistemic Conception of Democracy. Ethics 97 (1): 26-38.
  • Dow, S. 1939. Aristotle, the Kleroteria, and the Courts. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 50: 1–34
  • Dowlen, O. 2009. The Political Potential of Sortition: A Study Of The Random Selection Of Citizens For Public Office (Sortition and Public Policy), Exeter: Imprint Academic.
  • Estlund, D. 2003. Why Not Epistocracy? In: Reshotko, N (ed.) Desire, Identity, and Existence: Essays in Honor of T.M. Penner. Kelowna, BC, Canada: Academic Printing and Publishing, pp.53–69.
  • Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Fishkin, J. S. 2018. Random Assemblies For Lawmaking? Prospects And Limits. Politics & Society, 46(3), 359–379.
  • Flanigan, B., Gölz, P., Gupta, A., & Procaccia, A.D. 2020. Neutralizing Self-Selection Bias İn Sampling For Sortition. Arxiv, Abs/2006.10498.
  • Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
  • Gibbard, A. 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result". Econometrica. 41 (4): 592–593.
  • Goodin, R.E., and J. C. Lau. 2011. Enfranchising Incompetents: Suretyship and The Joint Authorship Of Laws. Ratio 24(2): 154-166.
  • Grimmett, G. 2004. Stochastic Apportionment. The American Mathematical Monthly, 111(4):299– 307, 2004.
  • Guerrero, A. A. 2014. Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42: 135–78.
  • Gunn, P. 2019. Against Epistocracy. Critical Review 31(1): 26–82.
  • Headlam-Morley, J. W. 1933. Election by lot at Athens. Cambridge: The University Press. (first published in 1891).
  • Holst, C. 2012. What is Epistocracy?, In: Sacred Science?, edited by Lund-Olsen Øyen S.A. and Vaage N.S. T., Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
  • Jeffrey, A. 2018. Limited Epistocracy and Political Inclusion. Episteme 15(1): 412–432.
  • Klocksiem, J. 2019. Epistocracy is A Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing. The Journal of Ethics 23(1): 19–36.
  • Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2012. Estlund on Epistocracy: A Critique. Res Publica 18 (3): 241–58.
  • List, C., and R. E. Goodin. 2001. Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing The Condorcet Jury Theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3): 277-306.
  • López-Guerra, C. 2011. The Enfranchisement Lottery. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 10. Pp. 211–33.
  • Lote, S. 2013. Selection by Lot & Its Ancient Greek Origins. Online Erişim: https://counter-currents.com/2013/06/lot-and-its-ancient-greek-origins/
  • Mill, J.S. 1977. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XIX - Essays on Politics and Society Part II, ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by Alexander Brady (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977).bkz. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/robson-the-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-volume-xix-essays-on-politics-and-society-part-2#lf0223-19_label_211
  • Mill, J.S. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government, (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958 [1861]), 154-55.
  • Min, J. B. 2015. Epistocracy and Democratic Epistemology, Politics in Central Europe, Vol. 11, No. 1.
  • Moraro, P. 2018. Against Epistocracy. Social Theory and Practice, 44(2), 199-216.
  • Mulligan, T. 2015. On the Compatibility Of Epistocracy and Public Reason. Social Theory and Practice 41(3): 458–476.
  • Mulligan, T. 2018. Plural Voting For The Twenty-First Century. The Philosophical Journal 68(271): 286–306.
  • Munn, N.J. 2012. Capacity Testing The Youth: A Proposal For Broader Enfranchisement. Journal of Youth Studies 15(8): 1048-1062.
  • Munn, N.J. 2013. Capacity-Testing As A Means Of Increasing Political Inclusion. Democratization 21(6): 1134-1152.
  • Munn, N.J. 2016. Against The Political Exclusion Of The Incapable. Journal Of Applied Philosophy.
  • Platon, 2008. Devlet, (çev. S. Eyüboğlu & M. A. Cimcoz), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  • Owen, D., & Smith, G. 2018. The Circumstances of Sortition. https://ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/929-utopias-2018/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Owen-and-Smith-PS-special-issue-on-Sortition.pdf
  • Rhodes, P.J. 2012. Kleroterion. In: The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (eds R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner).
  • Saran, R. and N. Tumennasan.2020. Whose Opinion Counts? Implementation By Sortition. Games And Economic Behavior, 78:72–84, 2013. Sewell, R.; MacKay, D.; McLean, I. 2009. "Probabilistic Electoral Methods, Representative Probability, And Maximum Entropy". Voting Matters. 26: 22.
  • Somin, I. 2019. The Promise and Peril of Epistocracy, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy (Symposium on Jason Brennan, Against Democracy), (pre-publication version), Forthcoming, George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 19-15,
  • Stone, P. ed. 2011a. Lotteries in Public Life: A Reader, Exeter: Imprint Academic
  • Stone, P. 2011b. Luck of the Draw, The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Thorley, J. 1996. Athenian Democracy. London, Routledge.
  • Tremmel, J. and J. Wilhelm. 2015. “Democracy or Epistocracy? Age as a Criterion of Voter Eligibility.” In Youth Quotas and Other Efficient Forms of Youth Participation in Ageing Societies, 125–47. Springer, Cham.
  • Zeckhauser, R. 1973. "Voting Systems, Honest Preferences and Pareto Optimality". American Political Science Review. 67 (3): 938–940.
There are 57 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Coşkun Can Aktan

Publication Date July 31, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 14 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Aktan, C. C. (2022). EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon ve Rotasyon Sistemi). Organizasyon Ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(1), 1-26.
AMA Aktan CC. EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon ve Rotasyon Sistemi). Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi. July 2022;14(1):1-26.
Chicago Aktan, Coşkun Can. “EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin Ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon Ve Rotasyon Sistemi)”. Organizasyon Ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 14, no. 1 (July 2022): 1-26.
EndNote Aktan CC (July 1, 2022) EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon ve Rotasyon Sistemi). Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 14 1 1–26.
IEEE C. C. Aktan, “EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon ve Rotasyon Sistemi)”, Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2022.
ISNAD Aktan, Coşkun Can. “EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin Ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon Ve Rotasyon Sistemi)”. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 14/1 (July 2022), 1-26.
JAMA Aktan CC. EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon ve Rotasyon Sistemi). Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi. 2022;14:1–26.
MLA Aktan, Coşkun Can. “EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin Ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon Ve Rotasyon Sistemi)”. Organizasyon Ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 14, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1-26.
Vancouver Aktan CC. EPİSTO-KLEROS (Siyasi Liderlerin, Temsilcilerin ve Yöneticilerin Görevlendirilmesinde Liyakat İlkesine Dayalı Sortisyon ve Rotasyon Sistemi). Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi. 2022;14(1):1-26.
 Download Cover Image