This whole trilogy of trilogies is poorly thought out. I mean in the first Star Wars, we don't even know how the Imperial Senate works or why it was significant that the last remnants of the old republic had been swept away. Why did Princess Leia think she had some sort of immunity? Heck, we don't even know for sure whether she is a rebel sympathizer until the end of the movie! What was the old republic anyway? It's not explained in any useful detail. What is the alliance? Who are they allied with? It's all completely opaque, and it could just be spelled out, but it isn't. That's lazy storytelling, right?
This would all have been solved if they would have shot the movies in chronological order. Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith together give us the background necessary to understand what happens in all the subsequent films.
Or maybe the sort of embedded storytelling that emphasizes the characters and only hints at the setting is intended. Maybe what matters is the relationships among the characters because those relationships supercede the grand schemes of the political setting. Luke's triumph at the end of Return of the Jedi isn't a geopolitical victory, it is a personal one. He is trying to redeem his father. When Darth Vader dies, he doesn't ask Luke to proclaim his sorrow to the galaxy, he asks him to tell his sister. Perhaps one of the reasons that Episodes 1-3 aren't quite as good is because the grand schemes began to upstage the relationships which were intended to drive the stories. Anakin falling to the dark side to save his wife seems small when you consider the final result: thousands of Jedi slaughtered, the complete corruption of the government, and the subsequent enslavement of a galaxy. Maybe leaving the setting as background is better for these movies.