Likewise, I think public choice theory would probably argue that corruption is a predictable outcome in politics that has to be constantly guarded against.
As dystopian as that sounds, it's the only way I see to truly rid ourselves of corruption.
If the public does not trust the fairness of the AI prompt, that will hopefully lead to revolution and replacement of the prompt with something more principled, similar to how rigged elections (sometimes) trigger revolutions.
A strong checks and balances without influence of bias, relationships, and politics can be implemented using a 2-way blind system where:
1. decision makers (of sound judgement) are not aware of any identifiable information related to any users on whom the decision will be made, nor of each other.
2. Users are not aware of the decision makers who will decide on them, nor of each other.
Possibly AI can play a role here, but a strong system of checks & balances would be a prerequisite for this.
The justice system would definitely benefit from this.
History suggests it's the other way round. They're awfully prevalent - what is a hereditary monarchy but nepotism - but the value of meritocracy over nepotism enables such better governance that it tends to win handily in proxy or actual conflicts. Similarly, if your society is too corrupt when you go to war you discover that someone has sold the tyres off all your stored vehicles, or suchlike.
You also can't have a complex society without a complex government. This goes all the way back to Qin dynasty vs. "barbarians".
Advanced governments only force corruption to distribute and obfuscate.
I think this is why there appears to be some correlation between unpopular behavior and financial success.
Government essentially erects artificial barriers to entry on behalf of the incumbent businesses that fund it.