The Star Wars prequels needed more focus on political dynamics, not less.
As
@Autumnal notes, the prequels capture many elements of democratic collapse and rising fascism, but I think they often fail to place these elements against a cohesive background. In Attack of the Clones in particular, the goals and membership of the key factions are vague enough that I'm not convinced even the writers had a clear conception of them.
Count Dooku, for instance, is initially described as a "political idealist", but we never see what the idealistic side of the separatist movement looks like and how it aligns (or doesn't align) with the corporate oligarchs providing the movement's military power.
Amidala, meanwhile, is described as "leader of the opposition". The head of state is a man she helped elevate to power, who formerly represented the same planet in the Senate. Surely this should be a source of narrative tension?
Bail Organa has a fair amount of screen time, but we get little insight into his actual views until after he goes to the Jedi temple and witnesses the murder of a child. This scene feels like the pivotal moment in his journey to becoming a leader of the rebellion, but it would be more compelling if we understood where that journey started.
On the Jedi side of things, the Order's stance on slavery in the Outer Rim is an incredible missed opportunity to add depth to Anakin's journey. After all, Anakin's first question on identifying Qui Gon as a Jedi is "Have you come to free us?... I believe you have. Why else would you be here?" Seeing that political constraints will never allow this to happen (or perhaps hearing it from Mace Windu...) should play an important role in Anakin's disillusionment with the Order, and would give him another, more concrete target for his anger after his mother's death.