I don't think that's the case. I think that the larger point is that change is difficult and complex and revolutions don't always work or their potential is squandered (or it takes a while to change).
But... that doesn' really disprove what I said about how the DA games are mostly about the player character "restoring order" by saving oppressive systems from crumbling (Chantry, Circles, monarchies, even Kirkwall's oligarchy) and returning power to the hands of the oppressive elite (nobles, clergy, privileged humans, etc). That the best we can do is maybe shift management over to more liberal leader of an oppressive system (Bhelen is kinder to casteless than Harrowmont, Alistair is better to city elves than Anora, Leliana and Cassandra are better Divines to mages than Vivienne, etc), and hope s/he treats the oppressed (casteless, mages, city elves, etc) better than the previous one/s.
I mean, characters who actively try to change things either are villains or are portrayed as destructively misguided for even attempting (Loghain for Ferelden DAO, Howe for the Couslands in DAO, the Arishok to Kirkwall in DA2 Act 2, Anders to the mage/Templar conflict in DA2 Act 3, Corypheus in DAI and Solas implied for future games), while characters who reactively try to undo the changes and restore the status quo (even one admitted to be inherently oppressive and corrupt like the Chantry, Circles, Kirkwall nobility, Orlesian Empire, etc) are the "good guys." (Which, incidentally, is always the side the player character is on.)
I just find it off.