First of all the weakness of civil society is one reason contributing to the lack of women’s participation in democracy. The third space is a place with having specific infrastructure of the global civil society which is driven by the values of human rights. Gender fairness should find its place in this space in the framework of human rights. In 1989 in Central Europe the civil society was weak, but there were different spaces where resistance to communist state was articulated. The term by Habermas: alternative public sphere is useful to speak about “flying universities”, student clubs, saloons and samizdat publishing to break the state-imposed censorship and to describe this space which had at time no connection to global therefore it was limited in a way.
To summarise, we live in the age of globalisation which is a parallel phenomena to the re-nationalisation. As in 1989, now we clearly see how political changes are rooted in concrete struggles against the local authority. The question is how to secure rights and guarantees from the national state for women. Sassen’s suggestion about national and global is to: “dislodge them form their particular historical constructed encasement… and examine their constitution and institutional location in these different formations, and their possible shifting valence as the global grows”. So borders between global and local are not fixed, and the space between national and global can effectively challenge both of them by actors as women activists. So the boundaries of the space which lies between global and national are subtle and from here both global and national can well be criticised by political actors.
The Third Space can serve as a guarantee and also as a trap. Especially when women and democracy are at stake, so we should be vigilant and persistent and should learn from the experiences of our fore-mothers.