Humans have developed intelligence and culture, which allows us to consciously adapt our behavior over timespans shorter than a generation. Thus we also have developed more adaptable rules that are embedded in culture rather than genes.
That said, both ants and humans arise from the same evolutionary process. Human government is different from, but not any less natural than, ant behaviors.
Though genetic influence is likely more attenuated.
An ant colony is a life-support system for a queen. You're lionising a feudal system, where the life of the commoner is meaningless and dangerous, while the nobility is pampered and insulated. All the commoners are achieving is continued life for the nobility, and they do so frequently at the cost of their own lives. They are entirely disposable.
Similarly, the 'complex structures' that ants build are mind-numbingly simplistic, when compared to the ones humans create.
So what we have is better than the ants in certain ways, because we have an ever-increasing capacity to reprogram behaviors and reason about them without relying on genetic changes; it's going to surface itself as an ugly, inefficient, inequitable, system because we use human judgment to fill in so many gaps, but that's why we also have such a strong incentive to keep automating everything.
Without making a value judgment, I just don't think we're capable of being that kind of drone. We're too conscious of our situation and that of others around us -- with "around us" expanding massively following the advent of print, radio/TV, and now the internet.
Sure, we can model their collective behaviour using simple rules and randomness. Yet this says little about individuals' motivations. Similarly, one can model parts of an economy. Yet a software agent does not have the inner sense of a person. A visiting alien with no comprehension of humans' subjective perspective might well (wrongly) consider our cities as we tend to see ants' colonies; just an artifact of some basic economic rules.