This paper conceptualizes challenges and dangers that have impacted Hungary's civil society (third sector, nonprofit sector, voluntary sector) over the past decade. The cases presented illustrate the fragility of both the civil sector and its underlying democracy in Hungary. The boundaries between state and nonprofits reveal pervasive paternalistic/cliental processes stemming from the period between the two world wars and pre-1989 experience of public-private relations and issue management. On the one hand, old regime strategies have survived and been maintained by the overt and unreflected dependency of the civil sector on the state. Secondly, the boundaries between church organizations and civil nonprofits present a politically mis(non)managed process that has resulted in a fading role of non-church NGOs in the field of social service. This process can be traced back to an unequal and biased treatment of service provider organizations in an allegedly sector-neutral environment. Both cases illuminate operations that have resulted in a significant dismantling of the civil sector and a consequent deterioration of democracy in Hungary.Keywords: civil society, democratization, public policy Political and social scientists from Huntington (1991Huntington ( , 1996 to Diamond (1994), Schmitter (2011) and Havel (1988, and from Habermas (1996Habermas ( , 2001) to *Corresponding author: Agnes Kover, Department of Social Work, School of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Pazmany Peter setany 1/A, Budapest 1117, Hungary; Sociology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana 47809, USA, E-mail: kovera@tatk.elte.hu 1 In this paper, the word civil society is used mostly in a relatively narrow sense and covers the formalized CSOs (associations, foundations) and non-profit sector organizations (NPOs). The theoretical contexts use the term in a wider sense (like civil society as arena by Fioramonti and Fiori (2010)) including the social movements, street protests and the public spaces for discourse (Miszlivetz 2012).

COVID-19 created an extraordinary social situation in which governments struggle to mitigate the harmful consequences of the pandemic. Challenging times show a society’s resilience and capacity for solidarity and cohesion, the government’s ability to deal with emergencies effectively, the stability and inclusiveness of political systems, and their aptitude to respect democratic values. It is particularly important to examine this period from the point of view of civil society and civil society organizations (CSOs), since civil society plays a pivotal role in the alleviation and dissipation of societal troubles associated with the epidemic, indeed a vital role in curbing the virus. The civil sector’s strength and resilience too is tested. As the studies in this Special Issue show, exploiting the potential of civil society was an option that only some countries have been able to seize - as a result of which they have effectively reduced the consequences of the calamity while increasing a sense of solidarity and belonging in their societies. Others, however, failed to recognize the importance of civil society and interpreted the situation as a “single-actor play on stage”. Neither solidarity nor cohesion play out as values in these latter cases; instead the single actor – government – grabs the opportunity to play the role of the heroic savior and the exclusive problem solver, grabbing for itself both symbolic gains and increasing concentration of power. Citizens are expected to trust no one or no organization except the charismatic leader (or party). Thereby is forged a vertical and hierarchical chain of control, rather than a horizontally linked network of trust and cooperation. The studies and commentaries in this issue cover nine countries located on an imaginary line beginning in the United Kingdom, and extending through Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Israel, India, China and South Korea, representing various socio-political and economic systems. Embedded in elaborated theoretical understandings, this introductory essay examines the research articles of this Special Issue in which authors unfold the dynamics of CSO-government relations in the context of the world pandemic. These accounts sharpen our understanding of the preexisting shape of government–CSO relations. The introduction places the countries on a scale which classifies them according to the characteristics of civil society–government relations unfolding during the pandemic. One of the endpoints is represented by those countries where the CSO’s creative and constructive responses to the social challenges were prevented or blocked by the government. In this setup, CSOs were ignored at best, and restrictions undercut their abilities to contribute to the process of mitigating the pandemic and its consequences. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of this scale, are countries where the government, both central and local, invited civil society partners in the response to COVID-19, orchestrated high-quality and multilevel cross-sectoral cooperation, and provided partners with the necessary (financial) resources. In those cases, CSOs were empowered effectively to participate in a process designed to address the epidemic and its consequences in accordance with principles of participatory democracy.

The paper examines the CSOs – government relations during the COVID-19 pandemic, first introducing how the pandemic affected the already authoritarian regime in Hungary and how this regime utilized the epidemic to extend and fortify its power. Then the paper presents the antecedents of the relationship between civil society and government in the frame of the National System of Cooperation (NSC). This relationship is unilaterally dominated by the government, and it may appear as a “4C strategy”: Cooptation, Coercion, Crowding out, Creation (the creation of a new, loyal civil society). Exploring the civil society and government relations during the pandemic, the study will conclude that there was no government attempt to coordinate the activities of CSOs or to try to harmonize sectoral cooperation from a broader perspective. The occurrences demonstrated the explosion of solidarity and the carnival of solidarity. These forms of solidarity, however, remain informal and leave deepening structural problems untouched. The paper presents the results of an empirical research which was conducted between March and September of 2020. The nodal points of the research include the resilience and flexibility of the organizations, their efforts to assist during the emergency and lockdown, as well as the issues of networking and the nature of their relations with the national and local authorities.

No abstract