PlexiKen - You are wrong in your history - the beheading of Charles I did not 'directly lead to parliament being suspended' - Parliament sat as 'a commonwealth (in Latin 'Respublica') and free state' for 5 years before Cromwell's coup d'etat in 1653. In that time it set out to provide a republican identity for England and to bring in a raft of equitable reforms. I am not a fan of Cromwell, but he did not take power for those 5 years - a short period, but not 'directly suspended'.
'democracy being abandoned'. This is your first anachronist reading that has no sensitivity to 17th century voting rights - to have the vote in England in the 17th century you had to have either 40 shillings worth of freehold land or an income of £40 per annum - which pretty much excluded the majority of the population.
As to 'Cromwell becoming dictator for life'. Cromwell's goal was to heal and settle England by tempering the Republicans through the introduction first of religious radicals (Barebones' Assembly 1653 ) and then the two Protectorate Parliaments which return a large number of non Republican Parliamentarians - these were based on relatively free elections with only recalcitrant Royalists (and a few ex Levellers) being excluded.
Yes Cromwell did become assume the reigns of power, and I think wrongly, but to suggest that Cromwell was a 'fascist' really shows no understanding of the term or of 17th century history. Fascism is a 20th century doctrine based on a strong centralised racial state in a industrial or post society - it cannot with any accuracy be applied to 17th century England. The Cromwellian Protectorate was modeled on Venetian dogeist republicanism - a Parliament under the guidance of the monarchical element of the doge as a constitutional president. In fact, far from being facsist, it was the only time in English history that England was governed by the principles of a (relatively liberal) written constitution (the Instrument of Government) and, until the 19th century, that a broad range of toleration for religious difference existed.
Now I realise that the then foreign countries of Ireland and Scotland suffered under the might of the New Model Army - Ireland because of a long standing English racial prejudice coupled with a dangerously militant Protestant world view and Scotland because its Presbyterian leadership kept sending troops into England to restore Charles II as the Scots covenanted king (despite the fact that he was as Presbyterian as the Pope). It might be added that 1 English Catholic was executed when Oliver Cromwell was Protector (and against his wishes) but many were executed under Charles I, so he hardly was a fascist.
As to Restoration being the 'only possible solution' - This is the logical error of inevitabilism - and you haven't read your historical sources - No one expected monarchy to be restored until mid 1659 (for example Royalist spies like Silius Tiitus were writing to Charles Stuart that he didn't have a hope of returning as king as late as January 1659). The trigger for Restoration was when the Army broke out into in fighting after the deposition of Richard Cromwell, Oliver having died in 1658. If it hadn't been for this period of in in-fighting the Scottish New Model Army General George Monck would never have marched to London and consulted with Presbyterians on his way south to take their view as to the settlement of the country by way of restoration. There was nothing inevitable about the Restoration until this time and, in fact, viewed from the direction of 1653-1659 as opposed to the logically fallacious direction of 1660 backwards was unlikely to have happened (altough, of course, it did). As I say, in my view a terrible contingency in history that deliberately turned the clock back in England and stunted its development for a century and leaves us with a parasitical monarchy and over powerful parliamentary executive (the Cabinet) that hides behind the monarchy to act like temporary tyrants.
