Look, the military interventions are far from ideal, but if I had a choice between a country with a military that steps in lightly when my country's secular ideals are threatened, and a country ruled by a strict authoritarian religious monoparty that strives to weaken democratic establishments, I know which one I'd choose.
If one side uses god as their method of maintaining power and the other uses the army then neither can claim to be representing democracy, at least as a method of acquiring and maintaining political power.
Outside of a basic democratic paradigm, I'm not sure what choice really means. But, even inside modern democracies the concept slightly theoretical.
And yes, each one of these was a big setback for democracy. It was not my claim that military coups are good for democracy.
But which would you rather have, a big setback and then a chance to rebuild a democracy, or a takeover by a party bent on eliminating democracy and the multiparty system, and turning the country into a permanent, hereditary, sham "democracy" in the style of Syria?