Summary

Global civil society is defined negatively, described as a sphere outside the state and the market, and related its expansion to the development of the network society, global political economy, and the value transformation of the modern-day Western society, characterised by an inclination toward post-materialism.

Functional definition of global civil society is related to the other pillars of the global system, that is, the state and the market, and the nature of the influence exerted on them by CS. Civil society possesses neither the power machinery of a political system nor the economic capital of the market, but has so-called soft force available: the capacity to create alternative notions of reality and mobilise the moral sentiment of the public.

Relation between CS and the market or the state may take on three different forms: co-option, co-operation, and conflict.

The whole debate still failed to make it clear where the legitimacy of CS and its actions comes from. There are two channels of legitimising the CS functioning: by the constitutional right of assembly and by the activities that it undertakes.

It is necessary to distinguish between two basic types of CS: the organic, represented by groups that are organised horizontally and are non-bureaucratic; and the institutionalised, comprising centralised and bureaucratically run organisations.

Debate which goes on within CS related to the necessity and scope of reforms that the global system should undergo is characterized by disagreement on the nature of globalisation. However, there is a broad agreement on the current problems and the main players in the global processes: the international organisations, multinational corporations, elites in developed countries, and consumer behavioural patterns.

On the other hand, however, heated debates are held regarding a new nature of the global order which would yield a most general support. We have distinguished between two principal paradigms of thought that the current debate revolves around: the radical (de-globalising) and the reformist.

The reformist approach demands a change in the rules, its arguments limited by the parameters of the system that it criticises. The radical paradigm, represented by many environmental and left-wing groups, demands cardinal and systemic changes and a retreat from globalisation toward localised and self-reliant units of production and consumption.

Another argument, related to and elaborating on the previous one, is the controversy over localisation: many CS organisations, on the one hand, tend towards the idea of strengthening globalisation, that is, establishing powerful and effective instruments of global governance capable of effective response to the problems and challenges of globalisation (such as strengthening the role of the UN, and introducing new rules and institutions). The opposite school calls for reinforcing democracy, subsidiarity and localisation, that is, recovered dignity of the local order.

Discussion
The debate on the nature of globalisation is not nearly coming to a conclusion. Civil society has become a global phenomenon for two reasons. Firstly, it has entered the age of networks and information streams and transcended national borders. Secondly, it has actively joined the debate on globalisation. It was NGOs who first began to sound the alarm long before governments noticed such problems as climate change or poverty in the third world.

The role of civil society in the current debate on globalisation is ever increasing in importance. It is its critical contributor and its conscience. It is tireless in pointing out the deficiencies and problems brought along by globalisation. The ongoing debates over the three pillars of globalisation – the market, state and civil society – foreshadow the upswing of civil society and its growing role within globalisation in the future.