The other option is the disintegration of rule of law into rule by law, where rule is used by the powerful as a weapon to attack ordinary people, but they themselves are above the law.

The Roman Republic had a term for someone who is placed above the law to achieve a specific purpose with high priority (like holding an election): dictator. The office of dictator was rarely given out, and only for a limited period of time and for a specific purpose, because people were scared of abuse of the power of being above the law. When Julius Caesar consolidated enough political power to get whatever office he wanted, he chose dictator - and he literally brought down the republic, and tarnished the term 'dictator' to the extent that those that followed him chose to use the office of Imperator (later Emperor) to describe what they do instead of dictator.

So should a political candidate who lost an election but is running again be given the same powers as a dictator in the Roman Republic? And be allowed to act with absolute impunity? I'd argue no, if they break the law they should be held to the same standards as everyone else. Obviously, he should be given a fair trial, and all the usual protections to ensure that he is only convicted of things he actually did though.