Regarding questions about a ‘change of regime’, i.e. reform of the system of government: The current oligarchic system is frighteningly dysfunctional and moving towards a more presidential or monarchical system, where the head of state has significant responsibilities and broad powers, would certainly help.
For now, I will leave aside the point that it is pointless to change the formal governance of the country without also changing the distribution of economic and bureaucratic power.
However, more importantly, as history teaches us, real life does not work in such a way that new powers are reasonably defined in public debate and then a person is sought through a competition (or elections) to fill the position. In reality, someone simply takes those broader powers. This could be a president, prime minister, chairman of the board of the largest company, or director of the secret police. They act like kings and force others to accept it, including subjugating or abolishing the constitutional court.
Changes to the written text of the Constitution may be made retrospectively and may not even be recorded. Everyone knows what they can and cannot do anyway. The founder’s successors use his powers. However, if they do not have strong personalities, those powers disappear again without any changes being made to the constitution.
The idea of someone seizing power frightens us because we automatically think of Adolf Hitler. But it is important to remember that, aside from Hitler’s insane regime, there have been many similar power grabs that have benefited countries and not led to terror. Two of the most famous examples are Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Charles de Gaulle.