He pointed at flaws in the US system. I defended them. I pointed at flaws in the Iranian system. He defended them.
We both had good points. F.ex. in his version, the Guardian Council's vetting and required approval of candidates was because "You couldn't have a goat herder be elected president."
Which, valid point! It sucks for everyone when democracies elect incompetent people. It's a tension between purer democracy (risking bad winners, but increasing freedom) and more restricted democracy (decreasing risk, but also freedom).
There's a reason Kant defined the categorical imperative [0] to cut all ways: because right must be right everywhere, for everyone. "Right for me", but "wrong for you" is indefensible.
In both countries the focus is on society and community over the individual.
So a person’s individual rights are actually quite limited and the overwhelming majority are perfectly fine with this. For example, Victoria had the longest and harshest lockdown in the world and the government is still massively popular.
What the author pointed out as a symptom, is the result of the systematic dumbdown of the population by our comparative overload, who might or might not have been conscious about it.