I think the difference is between an objective rule of law and what they have being a rule of some totalitarian thug's whim which depends on the direction of the wind.
I have bad news. There is no objective rule of law.
Law is a substitute for both morality and boundaries.
No two people have the same moral values, there is typically some overlap, but never the same. Religion exploited this by promoting universal morality, which doesn't exist unless it is prosecuted centrally.
Boundaries are really just a conceptualisation of territory and property, a purely animal concept (and thus important from the perspective of animals, such as we are). All the law does is provide a monopolistic, overwhelming force to both protect and deny boundaries (sometimes referred to erroneously as "rights") based on short-term political goals.
There is no objective rule of law, just animals playing with abstract concepts that help them win or maintain access to resources.
