It's a shame you would compare a Developed country, supposedly one of the best, with one that's knows to be not so good.
It's like comparing your sports team to one that consistently finishes low on the ladder - your team will always look good, even when they are far from the top.
If you want a comparison that will lead to improvement, compare your country to those known to have excellent human rights and freedom of information track records.
I'd argue that the US lost its reputation as "one of the best" quite some time ago. Communist Russia is probably still an overly contrasting comparison point - the US is not as bad as that - but compared to countries that are actually among "the best", the US has been quite low down the rankings for some time now.
So actually the OP's comparison seems fair. "The US may be bad these days, but at least it's not (yet) as bad as some of the worst in history!"
The problem here is that it's hard, if not impossible, to judge the two countries in such single-dimensional way.
For example if we would take into account the incarceration rate, USA has a higher one than Russia.
On a more subtle analysis, it's unfortunately possible that there is actually a (undergoing) way to silence dissidence, which is "just" different from directly killing people, for example legal rape, or manufacturing of doubt, just to mention a few.
Essentially, I think that there's no such direct comparison, and constructive analysis should take into account many many factors and contexts.
There would be France and the UK. Why do you consider the UNSC as an interesting subset when comparing governmental abuses? This is a genuine question.
The UK does everything the US does and more, just without the pretense of a concern for freedom. France is a cesspool of corruption and systemic bigotry, particularly towards Islamic people. The Security Council are the most powerful countries in the most widely recognized international decision making body. I think it's a fair way to identify US "peers".
The permanent members of the UNSC are the countries that were the most powerful at the end of World War II, not the countries that are most significant in the present day.
...and? What does that have to do with the current discussion?
You are partially correct but by and large the UNSC members are the key levers globally.
Regardless, the UNSC comment was to indicate that Russia is very much considered a peer of the USA. If they are not to be compared/contrasted then the debate is meaningless.
Let's just go with Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark for now, with New Zealand and Singapore thrown in to prove that you don't have to be Scandinavian to have an uncorrupted government.
Singapore doesn't have a corrupted government? Its not perceived by its people as having one. Its true too, as long as you vote for PAP members, reelect them and don't read foreign newspapers; everything then is fine and there is no corruption.
I do not claim that those governments are not in any way corrupt. They are simply the least corrupt of an inherently corruptible tradition.
The point is that we should be following our hopes rather than fleeing from our fears. Comparing yourself to the worst of your peers and patting yourself on the back because you are still somewhat better is blinding yourself to the absolutely unacceptable backsliding that has been occurring. Even comparing yourself to the best of your peers and dreaming about surpassing them is not enough. The ultimate, unattainable goal is zero corruption and perfect transparency. Effort required increases asymptotically as we approach that limit.
So it would seem that the only way to avoid having corruption in your government is to not have one at all.
We could have made the participatory government 20 years ago.
I always explain it like this (try to):
Our ancestors did not have Internet, direct participation was not possible. We therefore cant expect those ancestors of ours to have seriously considered it - at any stage. Arguably, before the Internet, everyone did his best to participate as much as they could. The new ingredient our generation introduced is for voters not to have influence on par with the technical possibilities.
If we would be overly modest we could allow that single vote to be changed when the voter wants to change it. If the voter cant change his vote the election program is not legally binding. One can say whatever he likes to get elected and enjoy 4 whole years without any consequences.
Technically we should be participating in the debate about specific issues at hand. Our officials would have little to do beyond the organization of that information (a feat easily automated) If we can do social networks and we can do flash trading then we need very little beyond a tech team and a few symbolic figure heads to make a kick ass democracy.
We can do considerably more than vote 1 time, ideas from citizens are a type of resource, value waiting to be extracted. Extraction will help it grow faster. Clearly we are missing out on incalculable riches, just sitting there, expiring while waiting for exploitation.
It would be more accurate to say that direct participation was not scalable past a certain population size.
But now, well... Nintendo even made a free Wii amusement called "Everybody Votes Channel". If people are willing to waste time voting on silly things just to see what other people in their tribe and around the world selected, they can certainly vote on things that actually matter to them, like taxes and laws.
The difficult problem nowadays is not the technical ability to get everyone participating, but how to avoid the pitfalls of democracy, such as an arbitrary majority tyrannizing an arbitrary minority, or a focused minority advancing a specific agenda over a relatively apathetic majority.
There would almost have to be a submission petition with a certain number of supporters, an initial 50% majority of those who care to vote to trigger spending development resources on the issue, then a funding round, where supporters have to supply the required budget directly, and finally a ratification round, where a supermajority, perhaps 67% of all possible voters, where non-voters automatically vote to reject, determines whether to proceed to implementation or not.
But that's all irrelevant detail when it is likely that those who currently hold power would use it to prevent a new system from taking it away from them. The status quo likes where it stands now. The system is ripe for disruption, but it is also quite good at retaliating against existential threats.
It's like comparing your sports team to one that consistently finishes low on the ladder - your team will always look good, even when they are far from the top.
If you want a comparison that will lead to improvement, compare your country to those known to have excellent human rights and freedom of information track records.