Those institutions which are longer lived are usually subject to tons of change. Think of the imperial Chinese system with its many dynasties or the church with its schisms. And despite behaviourally modern humans having lived on this planet for tens of thousands of years, thousands of generations, you won't find any institution that has survived longer than a few hundred generations.

Note also that the US has one of the longest lived current governments in the world. There are plenty of countries that have been around longer, but most of them have forms of government that came into effect there later than when the US got its current form of government.

I neither made nor implied any inferences, so it is hard to see how there can be survivorship bias.

What we have today is a tiny, tiny, tiny modification of that, where our savanna-adapted meat brains put in accoutrements of due process and fair trials, but it’s all just for show so that political elites can say one thing (freedom, due process, fairness) but do another (court packing, systemic racism, regulatory capture, corporate shilling).

I have two main objections to this line of thinking:

1. Even if a tendency or behavior can occur in "nature", that doesn't necessarily make it correct. By that measure murder, infanticide, rape etc. should also be considered acceptable since they occur in nature (both with humans and animals).

2. If you take a look at smth like The World Until Yesterday or other similar work it will become apparent that the kind of large scale hierarchies of power present in the modern world are relatively recent constructions. To me they're more a hallmark of contingency and deliberate human choices, not of "nature". If we want to make a less hierarchical society we can, it's in our power to change the design of society (to a significant extent at least).

2. I agree that large scale beauracracies are not in the best interests of humanity. I would argue for hierarchy, with less power the higher up the chain you go. E.g. Local governments should have more power than federal/national governments. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a national government.

I can see how one can see it that way, it is probably what those who rigging the game were thinking when they first started, and like the saying goes "those who play a rigged game gets stupid over a long period of time". That's probably why empires collapse, too much corruption and too many people playing the rigged game. A rigged game kinda corrupt workability of the whole system. The short term advantage may not be so good in the long run.

In a very centralized government systems you can't make top management accountable. Moreover, in such systems top management actually support master-slave relations between people, like between men-women, rich-poor, etc. It's then easier to hold power.

This isn't really true for most large firms. Since people are dependent on their wages, they are generally subjects to their boss' whims. You just have to look at Amazon workers wearing diapers to realize that workers don't generally get a say, even if they are not technically slaves.

The observation of a behavior or inclanation in the wild is not a good basis for the structuring of a civilization.

Well, there is a argument, that this is the case, because having leaders and followers is somewhat build in our DNA, if our ancestors lived like that for millions of years.

But the power structure in primal tribes were seldom true pyramidical. (That developed later in civilisation.) You had council of elders, the shamans, priests, etc. different kinds of power balance. Also the very important difference to civilisation power pyramids: in primal societies power was based much more on merit, not inheritance.

But with (different) authorities. Organizing the hunt in bigger animals or groups seem to require authority. Alpha male who leads the pack.