Absolutely agreed, and I think decentralization is a part of that. Instead of a single point of failure, spreading power between multiple groups reduces the potential damage and the incentive to corrupt a system.
Consider a treaty organization organized against a hypothetical enemy. If the adversary succeeds in corrupting and neutralizing one of the member states, that is significantly less damaging than if it were a centralized command that was corrupted.
It increases the cost dramatically to neutralize the treaty organization, and the threat to the system is easily and publicly recognized. As opposed to the slow and eventually catastrophic corruption of a centralized command.
I think what you’re after is robustness, which decentralization can achieve, but it’s not the only way. For example, a strong central government built around a large representative legislative body can still be robust, depending on how it’s set up.
Consider a treaty organization organized against a hypothetical enemy. If the adversary succeeds in corrupting and neutralizing one of the member states, that is significantly less damaging than if it were a centralized command that was corrupted.
It increases the cost dramatically to neutralize the treaty organization, and the threat to the system is easily and publicly recognized. As opposed to the slow and eventually catastrophic corruption of a centralized command.