That's actually comparing two collectives:
1. A collective where there is a belief (however slow or stodgy) in the consistent application of known rules.
2. A collective where the only real rule is to make the cult leader happy even if it means a forest of contradictions and rewriting history.
While (2) can easily change on a whim... it's not your whim.
Which leads us to the practical question: Which collective do you think you and your community could best fight against when it starts hurting you? I think a majority of the time I'd rather be opposed to (1).
> I think a majority of the time I'd rather be opposed to (1)
This sounds terrible. Any political system can be good or bad, but some of them are much more prone to autocratic drift than others. There should be absolutely no hesitation: rule of law is much better than personal dictatorship. It is not sufficient because the law can be oppressive, but it is absolutely necessary.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The phrase "I'd rather be opposed to" refers to choosing between two mutually-exclusive scenarios where I'm tasked to confront two different kinds of opponents.
If someone says: "Between catching Tuberculosis or AIDS, I'd rather be fighting Tuberculosis", that does not mean they have a favorable opinion towards AIDS.