> I'd rather live under a liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta, than an illiberal democracy ruled by Islamists who are destroying liberties, hollowing out civil society, and turning the country into a Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs.

(1) The Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs is called "Saudi Arabia".

(2) Assuming the attribution of the coup to the Gülen movement is accurate, it would likely not have been a "liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta" but instead an "quasi-liberal, pro-Western, relatively-tolerant-but-still-Islamist military junta".

I think Iran is a better comparison. They keep up the pretense and ceremony of democratic legitimacy, have a sizable and somewhat-tolerated liberal civil society, and rose to power by calling the faithful to the streets.

Saudi Arabia is a tough situation. The House of Saud is the only thing standing between the radical imams and total power.

The future of the Middle East looks very dark right now. Egypt is the only large power where the forces of order and civilization are winning.

I agree with you, but I can't help but feel that this position isn't defensible. Don't they have the democratic right to move to a more religious society if the majority want it?

That is "tyranny of the majority", and is one of the well-known failure modes of democracy.

> Don't they have the democratic right to move to a more religious society if the majority want it?

No.

Whether majority rights override individual rights is a matter of some debate.

> Liberal values and constitutional government preceded true democracy by hundreds of years in the West. Why do we expect otherwise anywhere else?

Also the lion's share of economic and scientific advancement.

For some reason democracy is being treated as the all encompassing headline act and receives applause tenuously related to its performance.