But, strangely, they are not the same thing at all.
OP is saying that the old system is clearly better because when they tried the new system the old system fought back and killed people, so they shouldn't have tried to replace the old system in the first place. It's democracy's fault that Somali warlords had to be brutal to keep democracy from working. Everyone would have been better off if they had just continued to put up with the warlords' old way of working.
This logic isn't comparable to the logic of Western democracies, it's comparable to the logic of criminal mobs everywhere. Play along and no one has to get hurt.
Interestingly, when the quote 'democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others' comes up this sham form of relativism you present vanishes from comments. And that is because democracy objectively is severely flawed, and only justified because it produces relatively better outcomes than many of the other systems that it replaced.
Me neither, because it didn't happen, and any attempts to both-sides this are dishonestly partisan.
Neither has a problem brutalizing foreigners in other countries, of course.