Most problems are located within a state and a jurisdiction. Networks discuss, debate and act on these problems. Ultimately political decisions are made by a central authority. The people who are affected by the acts and decisions are allowed to deliberate, participate and vote on which rules govern them and these networks: democracy.
Some contemporary problems however - especially super wicked problems(Levin c.s.) like climate change and asylum - seem to have two sorts of democratic challenges:
a. a part of the people with ‘affected interests’ (Goodin 2007, Fung 2010) are not allowed to deliberate, participate and vote on the rules that apply to them: asylum seekers, future generations
b. No central authority can decide and act since these problems are transnational.
In this Paper we will empirically explore innovative networks that are being built at local levels to deal with the asylum issue. One example: in September 2016 the mayors of fifty major European cities deliberated in Athens on ways to invite asylum seekers to their cities directly, since national governments do not keep their promise (in the Turkey – EU deal) to resettle 160000 refugees from Turkish camps to European countries. This proposal is linked to (announced) actions by civil society organizations e.g. in the Netherlands and Italy to drive to Turkey to actually drive selected refugees to European countries.
These are new forms of local networks which connect and act transnationally. They aim to help solve multi-level super wicked problems which national governments are unable to tackle. These innovative networks might be perceived as potentially effective alternatives to the liberal representative model of democracy, especially in transnational super wicked problems. They might create public value for all affected interests, not just for citizens of transit or host countries. However, these networks also confront us with questions of accountability.
