I apologise up front: this will be a L-O-N-G dissertation!
Totally. (that's the short answer!)
If humans are a part of it, it will be corrupt! Humans are flawed and cannot make perfect determinations all the time, when greed and other traits add to this, often taking advantage of the imperfections we craft, the result is corruption.
The degree of corruption is difficult to gauge. Some is blatant and very visible, other is difficult to detect because it is either so small or because of the enormity of it.
Assume all government is corrupt, all corporate entities are greedy and individuals want what is best for them, and if you get something good too, that's a bonus, then if you experience better than this gauge, you are doing okay.
As examples: Ukraine and Russia have blatant corruption, as well as subtle and gross corruption and people there recognise this, even condone it by shrugging and saying “I can’t do anything about it.” In the UK, US and EU, corruption is generally Gross, on such a scale that it is difficult to see unless there is a frame of reference to judge it by, and it is very difficult for individuals to acquire this frame of reference. The World Corruption Index lists Ukraine and Russia as mid to lower on the scale of countries, while the UK, US and EU are in the top region of having less corruption…
China has a really big problem with corruption and in five years has turned this around. It still has corruption and always will, but it is possible to change things.
Ukraine had a revolution and threw out a corrupt political regime – but little changed for ordinary people… why? Because the mechanisms of government – the Civil Service, who are not elected – remained, and they were just as corrupt as the political regime they threw out. The new political regime gets criticism for not making change when, to a significant degree, it is not them that are causing individuals hardship. The blatant problem here is easily observed, but hard to address in any practical manner.
The EU has a select number of people who are not elected sitting and making decisions about how the EU will run. this group can and does make decisions that over-rule the sovereign right of a country to make its own laws and determine its own future. These people are subjected to minimal scrutiny and are not accountable to the individuals of the member countries whose lives they impact on a daily basis. The issue is so large, it is difficult to get a frame of reference on it for individuals, therefore, is just accepted as the way things are. One of the members of this select group is currently wanted in one country for fraud and an arrest warrant has been issued for his arrest… but still he is making decisions about millions of peoples lives and how the EU will control these people well into the future.
Which of these is better?