There were great tension between modernising and reactionarian tendencies in Wilhelminian Germany and in the long run the modernising forces in German society would have prevailed.
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification (the short-term stability, prestige and military prowess of the regime was greatly bolstered by industrialisation), but let's run with it anyway. Why would the 'modernising' forces have inevitably prevailed? We know now that the entire Modernisation Thesis is basically just teleological wishful thinking, don't we? And why would they have necessarily prevailed peacefully? Or prevailed over the longer term? It's one thing to sweep away Kaisers and Generals, perhaps quite another to eradicate völkisch tendencies and related nasties.
Mind you, I happen to think that the First World War was a) unavoidable and b) changed 'everything', so this is at a very abstract level of idle speculation.
It's true that it was hardly irrelevant, but it was not even close to being a democratic legislature. We then need to consider all of the
other legislatures in Germany, many of which had significantly more direct political power...
Sure, it was a society with a lot of tensions. No doubt about it. And one in which there was a massive groundswell for change: no doubt about that either. But that wouldn't have made gradual democratisation of the sort seen in Britain or Denmark inevitable or even all that likely.
But the state parliaments and many city councils were systematically rigged in favour of the regime. And, yes, the new industrial elite was powerful but it was also frequently politically reactionary.
I don't buy into the Sonderweg thesis (which is reliant to an embarrassing extent on a complete misinterpretation of 19th century
British history, as well as the always dubious idea that there is a 'normal' path for anything), but all history is seen through the rear mirror. Including (and especially) counter-factual history.