At the beginning of the ‘80s in his frequently quoted study Elemér Hankiss described the unofficial space of social life in Hungary and in other Eastern European countries as second society. According to his view, the first society is constructed ideologically and controlled by administrative means, while the second society is a sphere of spontaneous interactions of citizens, a private niche away from the ideological indoctrination. The communist regime tolerated this practice, in return Hungarians accepted that politics is not the business of ordinary citizens. As a result – along with the relative high standard of living – the Kádár-regime received legitimacy. Theorists of the political transition in Hungary regarded the second society as a base of civil society, and civil society as a mean for fostering a democratic political culture. To fulfill this task, Western donor organizations supported the Hungarian civil organizations with financial resources and with the transmission of civil know-how. The new advocacy groups - which dealt with the classic issues of Western new social movements (ecology, ethnic, gay rights, feminism) relied mostly on foreign donations, governmental financial support and on their professional employees, but not on social movement mobilization. That is the reason why contentious politics is embedded in the civil society concept. In addition due to the legacy of the second society in the Kádár-regime “civil” has still a good call, while politicians and the political institutions are mistrusted. In my paper I would like elaborate this line of thought, how the embedded contentious politics developed in Hungary, and what kind of effect has it on the contemporary social movement mobilization particularly in the light of the recent “civil” demonstration against the second Orbán-government.
