The thing about Belarus is not that laws change at whim. They are not. According a lawyer I know from Belarus in courts small and not so small cases are considered rather fairly. One in principle can count that in a daily life rule of laws applies and the level of corruption is not that bad.
But the moment your case is perceived by authorities as political or somebody with power finds your business interesting, one gets BIG troubles. Now, by playing by the rules one can protect somewhat from the "business" interests, so the situation is better than, for example, in Russia. But political part is very unpredictable and it is impossible to know which action can cross the line.
By that definition Lukashenko is not a dictator. The protest the last spring resulting in reversal of his decree shows that he has constrains and cannot change laws at whim.
If you're referring to EO's issued by the President of the United States, you should be aware that EO's only have the force of law within two scopes of power:
* power delegated to the President by statute passed by Congress
* powers explicitly and exclusively delegated to the President by the Constitution (of which there are few)
It's a misconception that the President can issue an "executive order" that overrules Congress. Such an order would have no force, and would fail in front of a federal court --- you saw this with the original Trump Muslim Ban.
You're confusing actions taken by the executive branch with actions taken by the legislative branch. For a dictator like Lukashenko there is no difference. In democratic states they are quire different.
It amazes me that people still want to exclaim “Democracy!” in the same manner others (ab-)used “Communism!” when Agamben's very comprehensible works are easily available.
> But the moment your case is perceived by authorities as political or somebody with power finds your business interesting, one gets BIG troubles.
It is quite typical for many countries and Belarus is definitely not the worst one in this sense. For example, the situation in Latvia and Estonia is much worse because everything is ok and fair but only until you have "right" ethnic origin (citizen of 1st class) - otherwise, if you do not belong to the titular nation then you are in trouble - the whole system will play against you.
To claim that the Latvia and Estonia, two of the most open liberal democracies in the world, are in any way worse than the totalitarian dictatorship Belarus is totally ridiculous. You're either being disingenuous, or you've totally bought into Putin's propaganda.
Belarus is may be dictatorship, but it's for sure not totalitarian. And if you think that nacist Latvia is open liberal democracy you bought into propaganda.
> The thing about Belarus is not that laws change at whim. They are not. According a lawyer I know from Belarus in courts small and not so small cases are considered rather fairly. One in principle can count that in a daily life rule of laws applies and the level of corruption is not that bad.
No, not really. Especially not if you are conducting business.
But the moment your case is perceived by authorities as political or somebody with power finds your business interesting, one gets BIG troubles. Now, by playing by the rules one can protect somewhat from the "business" interests, so the situation is better than, for example, in Russia. But political part is very unpredictable and it is impossible to know which action can cross the line.