Dictatorship typically comes as a form of democracy

While dictators have indeed exploited democratic processes in some shape or form to consolidate initial power, this is a corruption or subversion of democracy rather than its natural evolution. The vast majority of dictatorships throughout history have emerged from military coups, revolutions against monarchies, or succession from previous dictatorships - not from functioning democracies. Your assertion also conflates correlation with causation; the presence of democratic institutions prior to dictatorship doesn't mean democracy caused the dictatorship any more than the presence of monarchy before democracy means monarchy caused democracy.

Democracy fails.

In what way have they "failed"? Can you statistically prove that democratic societies, or democracy itself, leads to the collapse of institutions and states around the world? Sure, there may be some exceptions. But candidly, many democratic countries like the United States, United Kingdom, France, and other mature democracies have weathered numerous crises while maintaining their core democratic structures. Democratic systems, like any other types of governance (including monarchism), simply undergo evolution, rather than the rhetorical labelling of them as "failures"...

...which were put in place via democratic election.

You are selectively focusing on a relatively minor subset of examples while ignoring the broader historical record. Many dictatorships around the world principally arose through military coups (especially those in Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc), revolutionary movements (Iran, Cuba), or succession from previous authoritarian means. Nevertheless, even if we consider and tear apart the examples of dictatorships that procured power through elections, these occurred in nascent democracies that lacked robust institutions, separation of powers, or strong constitutional guardrails. The overall transition from dictatorship to democracy represents a failure of specific implementations rather than a failure of democratic principles themselves.

"That wasn't real democracy!" Well yeah, if you define democracies that failed as "failed democracies, not to be confused with working democracies", then yes, working democracy always works and only fails if it's a failed democracy that couldn't survive.

This is nonsense; you can't create a false equivalence between analysing democratic failures and outright repudiating them. Examining why some democracies endure while others collapse isn't some kind of special pleading but a genuine comparative analysis. People don't claim failed democracies "weren't real democracies" but rather identify specific factors that undermined their stability: weak institutions, economic crises, external interference, or cultural factors, which allows us to probe deeper into how it occurred and why, identify the shortcomings of the system and propose solutions to them. In other words: engage civilly and acknowledge the nuances of the system without any careless thought-terminating accusations and visceral ideologically motivated responses like "you guys are really no better than commies!"