Can nomocracy be decreted? : considerations in the context of the contemporary situation of Ukraine

At the beginning of the present article the author will show - referring to the classics of political thought such as Aristotle and Francesco Guicciardini - that Ukrainian society failed, so far, in the art of producing a nomocratic (rule-based) system of government. The author puts forward a thesis that this fact was decisive in the past and is decisive now about the weakness of the Ukrainian state. It opened the way for Russia’s interference in the country’s affairs and also allowed the excesses of voluntarism on the part of the wealthy and well-connected in the system of power. Then the author points out that - with few exceptions - the lands included in the territory of Ukraine are not subject to the process of formation of nomocratic forms of government typical for Western countries. Certainly nomocratic patterns were not provided to Ruthenia / Ukraine during its relations with the Polish Crown. Therefore, in their laborious construction of the state of law, Ukrainians do not have a tradition to which they could refer. This makes the complicated situation even more difficult, though, as it seems, the aim of another Maidan was to create a law-abiding state. In the following discussion, I am of the view that reforming Ukraine may occur thanks to a statesman who will be able to gain public support during several terms of office. It does not have to be associated with the transition to authoritarian forms of government that would impede cooperation with the West and increased the credibility of the Russian narrative, which devotes a lot of time to Ukrainian fascism. Leading politicians of the Ukrainian scene would be difficult to place in the role of Men of Providence who could, in the spirit of the rule of law, pursue a policy of equal distance from Russia and the European Union, which seems to be the best use of Ukraine’s geopolitical position