Election time in any country is always a polarisation of opinion and heated debate. Ukraine, a country in the process of trying to strengthen democratic institutions, is, of course, no exception. This is pretty customary as an important decision is being made, on which much depends. It must be said however that even the most important decisions don’t typically change the course of a country too radically. To this end, a complex system of checks and balances has been created the world over, allowing society to develop and move forward without the fear that everything rests solely on one party or one person. Of course, changes are important, but things fundamental to society must remain stable in all conditions.

In recent years, populist rhetoric has gained great sympathy around the world. The most notorious examples include the victory of Donald Trump in the United States and Brexit in the UK. But I would like to note that in both cases, despite the unordinary and complex situations they are, have not, so far, led to fatal consequences. This is largely due to the fact that individual politicians are unable to bring down entire complex systems of licensing procedures and laws. The most active processes in this direction occur in the United States, where the president himself has been trying to rebuild the entire country under his will. Decentralisation, along with the power of parliament and the courts, however, have been more or less successful at preventing him from getting involved in too many adventures. And this is the difference between the United States and those countries that have become authoritarian regimes, such as the many states that border Ukraine.

If you look in more detail at the United States, you may recall that Donald Trump has created several loud scandals, signing wayward decrees. However, often these decrees were either not supported by Congress or were appealed in court. Trump, not to be outdone, went further, dismissing the heads of independent institutions, and, as of today, many positions in the United States are occupied by “acting” members, as opposed to full-fledged leaders. But even with such a planned attack, the legal system has survived and continues to deter the president from peremptory and fatal action. Courts and laws remain a stabilising mechanism, even if the judges themselves support the president. For Ukraine, this is an important lesson and skill that needs to be developed.

In fact, it is the rule of law that is fixed in our legislation, but the realities have long demonstrated something else: questions have been tackled “on manual control”, and corruption of the courts have puzzled many with unfair decisions. Moreover, even legal enterprises have made ethical compromises, putting at the forefront fees, as opposed to their reputation. The situation is changing now, however, and more and more companies are realising the importance of an ethical approach. There are many reasons for this, including increased transparency, increased competition, closer integration with the west, and much more. In any case, this is a positive process that determines the development of an industry. And it is especially important that it is happening right now. Why? Because the law allows you to cope with fluctuation.

The development of democracy is not only the ability of citizens to influence all processes in the country, but also the certainty that the consequences of the decision will not be radical, wavering from side to side and crossing out everything that has been done before. And the law and lawyers should be the defence here.