1. It is not enough to overcome the symptoms, it is necessary to eradicate the cause.
Of course, to achieve lasting results, it is necessary to fight the cause, not the symptoms. A big role in changing the role of law belongs to political elites - how they see themselves, how they see themselves being regulated by law. Political will must be clearly formulated - everyone, including the authorities, state bodies, must live according to the law, a legitimate law adopted by legitimate representative bodies within the framework of a legitimate procedure for seeking public consensus and achieving public, and not usurped, justice. Also, there cannot be law without separation of powers. These are the two minimum conditions for society to live according to the law.
Why is it important to talk about separation of powers? This is a political orientation towards changing the role of individuals in the life of society to the role of institutions. In the USA, with Trump, a picture was demonstrated - it is not the individual that is important, it is the institutions that are important. Trump came and didn't stay. The system is a system because it does not depend on personalities. The system does not prevent a dictator from coming to power; the system makes it impossible for a dictator to stay in power. The court in the system of separation of powers does not play the role of a formalizer of the will of the political elite, but produces law and meaning.
2. Law is a tool for finding a balance between many equal players.
Law needs to return meaning, society needs to return the need for law, and the need for law will be when there are many players who will need to somehow regulate relations among themselves. These are players such as groups and institutions in society, business, and institutions in the state. When there is one center for making all decisions in the country, law degrades into a system of orders "how the authorities should do it." Institutions must be created, they must be regulated and created, they must work transparently.
If we talk directly about the characteristics of law, then "correct" law is always characterized by transparency and debate in the development of decisions. Another element of law is argumentation. It should be noted that these are not the habits of rich, "white" countries, in which, supposedly, a judge can afford to take a year to write a decision, this is a standard requirement and an important part of the rule of law.
In normal legal systems, you read the decision and understand it; you may not agree, but you understand. In our country, degradation has reached one of the local maximums - there is no need for argumentation at all, decisions are written with a minimum of argumentation, including legal, that is, explaining what exactly the situation is happening, what interests are colliding, what exactly should be taken into account when making a decision. Argumentation is vital for the verifiability of a judicial decision. A verifiable decision occurs when everyone can fully follow the logic and thought process of the judge in making the decision.
There must also be a culture of discussing regulations - why are we adopting a regulation, what problem are we going to solve. This should all be transparent. It is logical that the justifications with which 100% of Belarusian regulations are adopted, namely "with the aim of improving legal regulation," do not give any idea of the goals of regulation. And without knowing the purpose of regulation, without understanding what place the normative act occupies in the overall system of achieving justice, without understanding what problem was planned to be solved by legal regulation, the court was divorced from reality and accepted completely other trajectory.
3. Law needs trust.
Law is a creation of human minds, there is no law outside of human society, and the only thing that makes it work is the trust of the members of society. Separation of branches of power is one of the tools for restoring trust. Transparency in law enforcement is the second tool. Correct law enforcement should be a priority, because everyone was convinced that there was law in Belarus, but it did not function. The laws were written, but there was no law. Trust in the law develops, among other things, through demonstrating that it works, that it is transparent, that there are no hidden games, that there are no subjects to whom the law does not apply. Among other things, legal education is extremely necessary, from an early age - what democracy is, how it works, for example, school elections - this is already an element of such education. This is not about primitive broadcasting "know your consumer rights," but about the social order, regulation of the relationship between society and government bodies, the legality of laws and the legality of the instruments for making laws. Trust and understanding must be formed from childhood.
4. Law is reborn from the head.
The model of behavior, the model of attitude towards the law very much depends on the attitude of the country's leadership. The importance of the attitude of the country's political leadership to the law may be lower in societies with strong traditions, but this is not about us. Our people are accustomed to reflecting the leader. We do not have a single tradition, not a single law that is at least 100 years old. Therefore, the attitude towards law is transmitted from above. If this authority respect the right, then others will respect it too. We have a stereotype that the higher the position, the less responsibility people have before the law. Exemplary floggings of officials or corruption squabbles have nothing to do with the law or legal mechanisms: no one in Belarus would even think that any of this happened because the law or legal mechanisms worked. And in a rule-of-law state, any official consolidates the interests of a group of people, and due to the trust that is given to him, he must be impeccable, must comply with the laws, and not vice versa - consider himself not bound by them.
5. Most likely, we should talk about the complete deconstruction of the existing system with the replacement of the personnel of all bodies related to law.
The view of law as something that limits and regulates "ordinary" people and businesses, but is in no way a tool for limiting power, apparently is a deep part of the worldview of law enforcement agencies. This worldview has been formed for a very long time, and, most likely, can no longer be changed - anyone is ready to take the lead and carry out what was ordered from above. Even if there is democracy, a change in regime, nothing will change in our heads. Law enforcers already live with the idea of "not caring about the laws," and this is fundamentally not about the law, it is about the implementation of the laws, but not about the rule of law. In the modern legal system, apparently, there is nothing and no one to repair; it is easier to rebuild. But it will be difficult. It is useful to study the history of other countries. For example, school reform in Ukraine. The reform is underway, but the people are old - there are many times more teachers needed than the same police officers or judges. And in the Ukrainian school, the same Soviet directors, the same teachers work, but they broadcast new things, but they broadcast it as if by rote, and in their heads there is a different understanding of school. It is clear that this is required of them from above, the first generation of teachers after the transformation will be like this, but in the end a director will come who does not know how to do it differently. Therefore, the will from above is important. Those who do not fit into the framework of requirements, who are not ready to work in a new way, simply leave the profession without even any forced processes - the requirements have simply become different, and many performers "not up to the law" will not comply with them.