Britain had a habit of showing all its religious/political (can't really separate them at this point in history) minorities the door (and to be fair, some of them were basically lunatics) which is likely a large part of why things shook out the way they did. A bunch of ideologically opposed groups cast onto another continent had no choice but to learn how to self govern despite their differences.

Democratic in the modern sense. The past millennia of English history could be understood as a slow progression of the devolution of power. The actual politics were pretty messy, but the evolution in legal and political theory was more steady. Compare that to most other civilizations, where the evolution of democracy was much more abrupt and epochal, not to mention even bloodier and altogether much more recent.

There were democratic movements elsewhere, but almost all were squelched by king and tsars (domestic or foreign) and the legal and political environments reset to square 0.

Also, the modern notion of the history of democracy is the devolution of power to the masses. But I like to think of the evolution of English history, at least legally, as the (albeit slow and uneven) elevation of the masses to the aristocracy, and in that way something similar to how the Greek's viewed democracy--with power comes responsibility and stricture. Though, that was partially the product of the expulsion of certain groups from the island; yet, that process was carried over in the US where many of those groups landed.

There was more than just the Levellers at the time, maybe read "The English Revolution, 1640" [1] by Christopher Hill.

[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-re...