My comparison with the US was not intended to indicate complacency about the status quo. Your comment about hunger strikes underscores my point. It is complete

My comparison with the US was not intended to indicate complacency about the status quo. Your comment about hunger strikes underscores my point. It is completely inappropriate for any citizen of the modern US to express any indignation about the democratic process going on in another country. In the US we are given a standard explanation about other countries: Women are mistreated there, children and the poor are victims, governments there are corrupt and ineffective, sectarian or criminal gangs run things, etc. We as enlightened Americans are supposed to feel indignant, and we're supposed to support bold action that will free the people in question from their oppressive circumstances, since the people themselves are too dis-empowered to do it for themselves, too clueless to realize they should, etc. The author's story was strongly influenced by this kind of explanation, right down to the indignation he ever-so-confidently expresses. This is why I mentioned a few aspects of American society that ought to put things into perspective a bit. If someone is drawn to indignation and feels inspired to allow his life to be motivated by its sharp pangs, he should look closely at the environment he knows most about -- his own city or possibly his own country. The narrative/explanation above is used to promote meddling in other countries and is a hallmark of neoconservative thought. The problem is that it's horribly misguided and harmful.