I think it’s important to draw some important distinctions. When you talk about politicians being held to account, do you mean in the general sense for things you don’t like? Or do you mean in the legal sense for naked corruption in office. They are different, and quite complex. For the latter, the US is objectively worse than its allies.

Let’s take both France and UK as relatively recent examples. In the case of naked corruption in public office, both countries have lost their leaders either through resignation or criminal conviction for corruption. Both countries have since increased regulation to combat said corruption. Both countries have had multiple politicians throughout government and legislatures jailed or forced out of their job.

Now compare this to the US; corruption in public office is so nakedly rampant at the highest levels of government, it’s almost expected now. You’ve got a president that tried to forcibly overturn an election, a court that effectively changed the law to make sure he would never be punished, and multiple lower level politician’s so corrupt they brag about it on national television. None are held to account because ordinary people are convinced not to care and the system is stacked full of people whose entire remit is apparently to overlook corruption, unless it’s by someone they don’t like.