I mean, you could argue that maybe the military would be better, but a military coup of an elected leader doesn't just "seem" undemocratic; it is undemocratic by any reasonable standard.
There are very few actual democracies in existence today. There is a reason most democratic countries don't put every decision to a public vote and why there are often certain laws no government is allowed to change. You can agree or disagree with the priorities Atatürk set in place but from his point of view even an elected leader can become a traitor and enemy of the state and it's the duty of the military to stop him (because they are the only power not directly under the government's control and are able to resist with force if necessary unlike e.g. supreme court judges).
What the comment you're replying to is correctly pointing out is that what you can't say about a coup is that it's democratic. It's the opposite of democratic.
How so? If there's a dictator in power and the majority of the people want to return to a democratic election and the only way to remove the dictator is with a [violent] coup - how is that not democratic? How can the imposition of a democratic system by the majority will of the demos _not_ be democratic?
[I'm not claiming that the situation in Turkey was supported by the majority or not, just trying to drill down on the general point of what [you consider] is democratic].
Let's put it this way, let's say 60% of people vote to kill the other 40%. And then a third party enters and stops such madness. You know who is more democratic of them all? The third party, for allowing the existence of more than one party. A coup can be more democratic than any election. It's all about context.
In reality, it's in no way the simple ground truth that Turkish coups have uniformly sought to achieve "greater democracy". What they are in fact is a terrible misfeature of the Turkish system; a way in which Turkey joins the ranks of Pakistan and Egypt on a faster or slower arc towards autocracy. Which is the other word for "democracy that remains democratic until the people do something that make you uncomfortable".
Edit: typos
Second, just because a coup is overthrowing an elected government that, having achieved power, is subverting democracy, doesn't mean the coup is itself democratic. A military coup is the opposite of democracy. Democracy has been restored in plenty of countries previously ruled by authoritarians without recourse to the military.
World politics isn't my strong suit, could you give a few examples? Thanks.
Would a military coup in China be the opposite of democracy? Then what do they have now? A different opposite of democracy? I think you wanna paint a black and white pic of the subject but that is impossible
To borrow your analogy: In general there are more sheep than wolves, but the wolves have a habit of twisting things - gerrymandering will give them a fresh kill for every vote.
Suffice to say, a modern democracy is supposed to have strong safeguards for minorities; take filibustering, for example, or the various human-rights courts and treaties. Modern democracy is not just "one head, one vote", or there would be no safeguards against a new Holocaust.