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".