Public dissatisfaction with the government keeps growing, along with a desire for change. That frustration shows clearly in President Zelenskyy’s falling approval ratings, as highlighted by last week’s data from Rating Group. In such moments, leaders typically opt for visible change—and replacing the entire executive branch would have looked like a logical response to rising public expectations.Instead, we now see that the Cabinet remains largely intact. It’s unclear why Denys Shmyhal was forced to step down as prime minister. If his qualifications or performance no longer meet the standards to lead the Cabinet, why move him to the role of defense minister? And if he proved effective as prime minister, why remove him at all?The truth is, today’s political system doesn’t care who holds which office. Ukraine is slowly drifting into an era of stagnation, where real institutions fade and symbolic ones take their place. As a result, replacing the prime minister can no longer change anything.Functioning institutions define democracies and distinguish them from dictatorships. And now, even Financial Times has begun offering international readers an internal Ukrainian perspective: not only activists but also Western officials in Kyiv are now openly tracking Ukraine’s slide toward authoritarianism.Yes, the war explains a lot—but our Western partners no longer view the President’s Office absorbing all branches of power as something that helps Ukraine win. Instead, today’s reshuffle only reinforces the country’s drift toward centralized presidential control—and the continued weakening of every other institution of power.SourceAbout the author: Mykola Kniazhytskyi, journalist, Member of Parliament of Ukraine.The editorial board does not always share the views expressed by the authors of blogs or columns.