A law may be changed due to it being unjust, inappropriate or relevant to contemporary situations.
When laws are enacted they reflect the moral and social perceptions of the law makers. They are not considered "truth" nor are they considered unchangable. Some laws are enacted without the overwhelming support of the people and in most countries people are free to protest and lobby for change.
For example, homosexuality was illegal in the UK for many years until the moral and social conscience of the majority of society incited change. We currently have laws banning the use of certain drugs yet the debate goes on about if these laws should be changed to better tackle the social issues caused through abuse. One could never say never to change to these laws even if you think they are the best way forward right now.
The WTS has not used the term "new light" for ages. They recognise it's link to u-turns and flip-flopping doctrine. They use terms like "increasing light" and "clarification" to imply progression and evolution rather than complete change. They try to deflect through semantics the fact that a "clarified" understanding can be the polar opposite of the previous belief yet they both count as the "truth" in their own times.
You cannot criticise a current teaching of the WTS. You cannot lobby for change. You cannot show any dissent. You cannot enforce change. You cannot survey or poll the membership to gauge opinion. It's even pretty hard to criticise a previous teaching since that is an implied dig at the GB for only trying to do their best at the time. Embarrassing details are brushed under the carpet, simply ignored and never referred to. Doctrine changes are never because something was unjust, inappropriate or irrelevant.
You can trace most "increasing light" and "clarifications" down to one of the following:
- saving the org money
- making the org money
- minimising legal exposure
- controlling the membership
- covering up prophetic failures
The comparison with law making is not even close.