Corruption happens on any level though and corruption will happen but that doesn't mean that corruption is happening. As in, it can't be helped but not everyone is corrupted. It can be curtailed though and slowed though. The amount of power doesn't seem to be a requirement for corruption, just the possibility of exploitation.
I'd agree with that. But in a small community (say 150 people,
without an absolute ruler, in name or just in fact, who has attained that position through undue influence) slackers, corrupters, and similar are identified and culturally shunned, pursuaded to conform or outright banished.
I will say that human have gotten much better at governing themselves.
Now, I'd consider this contentious. Or, rather, the governing humans do 'better' (FCVO) at governing far more people in a far more opportunistic world than in the 'old days'.
Look at Feudalism. Common perception is that "everyone knew their place", although obviously that's a simplification, and then that system broke due (at least in part, but arguably a large one) to the plague and depopulation, making individual serf's efforts a marketable quality rather than inevitably tied mostly to one master for an entire life. So of course organisation and government had to adapt. (Again, a simplification.)
I won't argue (either way) Whether a feudal system would have given us everything from railways to iPods, blogs to space travel. That way lies a minefield of speculative history which could be moulded almost any way you want by making the appropriate assumptions. But governments (i.e. the whole organisational hierarchies, rather than various instruments of the stat ethat may or may not be riding the forefront of socio-technological symbiosis) still have difficulty with the 'old' globalism that arose in the latter half of last century, never mind the informatic globalism of today.
Unless you're talking about
individuals governing themselves, in which case I would point to various divides (socio-economic, digital or various others), on one side of which lie those that are in charge of their own destiny and on the others are those who are not. Give or take any "rebellion of the unwaged" (in nations where this is practical), where people who find that they can live comfortably upon benefits[1] and milk the system in a way I could never bring myself to do.
But I fear I've strayed form whatever point I was first inspired to make and hit Reply for... Which I've forgotten.
[1] When I was unwaged and volunteering in a computer recycling scheme, I was amazed at the number of on-benefits people I delivered paid-for-by-the-Job-Centre computers to who also had large, wide-screen TVs, etc, when I was having to be very frugle and
only kept running a car (my biggest cost, other than the obligatory utilities, etc) because of parents handling the associated costs so that I could keep future commuting options open.