I don't know how you come to these conclusions! Every process of democratization in the whole history of mankind has included violent acts. However, that degree of violence varies with the level of acceptance of the autocrat, or the autocracy, of that process: the harder an autocrat digs in his/her heels, the more violent the process will become and the opposite if of course true.
As an example, the 1st revolution in Tunisia started because of an act of self immolation, a violent act. What pursued, led to 300 deaths and 2000 injuries (in a country of 10 million), more violent acts. The only thing that finally stopped that violence at that point was Ben Ali's acceptance that he had to step down. The rest of the process included the flourishing of an Islamist armed insurgency (violence) and two VERY high profile assassinations of secular political players from the opposition (violent acts). The ONLY reason the process did not become MORE violent, was that the moderate Islamist government decided to heed the calls of the people and negotiate a political transition.
The process was/is not any different in Egypt or elsewhere, only the outcome has been different based on relevant parties accepting or refusing to accept the need for that political transition/change. Mubarak and the Shah eventually accepted the need for political change as an example. The IR, Qaddafi, Assad and Mursi, did NOT. When that's the case, the continuation or escalation of violence becomes inevitable and as I said, the harder an autocrat digs in his/her heels, the more violent the process will become - Libya and Syria are perfect examples of this and Mursi's removal was the perfect example of the reverse.