The series of agitations that were popularly called the Arab Spring may have begun in Tunisia, but it was in Egypt two years ago that they had their proudest moment, when they toppled the three-decade-long rule of Hosni Mubarak, replacing him with what appeared to be the beginnings of a liberal democracy. But storied Tahrir Square is once again full, and it is clear how far that dream was from realisation. Just as with the Mubarak regime, the presidency of the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi came to an end thanks to the action of the Egyptian army; Mr Morsi was told, last Wednesday, by the senior army command that he was no longer president. This followed a series of demonstrations by those in the cities angry at the attempt of Mr Morsi's government to restrict many liberal freedoms - and which called, in many cases explicitly, for intervention by the men in uniform. In Egypt, progressives don't want to call it a coup. But what else is it when the military sacks a democratically elected head of government?
Matters have not improved since the removal of Mr Morsi. For one, agreement on a new prime minister has proved elusive. The front runner, liberal standard-bearer and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, is a deal-breaker for the conservative Salafi Islamist Al Nour party. In the last elections, the party had commanded the second-largest share of the vote behind Mr Morsi's more moderate Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile, clashes continue in Tahrir Square and other city centres between members of the Brotherhood and anti-Morsi demonstrators. At least 17 people died on Friday night in Tahrir Square. And the army's role in the clashes continues to be questionable: it policed one route into Tahrir, but left the other open to men of the Brotherhood, leading to pitched battles in the square. Many believe that, as with their removal of Mr Morsi, the military's leaders are waiting for the situation to deteriorate enough that there are calls for them to step in and declare martial law, which may be what they really want.
Naturally, in the end, this is a matter for Egyptians to sort out. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that it matters only to Egyptians, and that only Egyptians can influence the outcome. The attitude of the world to the removal of Mr Morsi was schizophrenic, differing considerably from the way in which such coups are generally treated. The weaknesses of the United States' foreign policy are particularly apparent. The US first allowed Mr Morsi to exercise his dictatorial tendencies - in spite of America's considerable leverage thanks to its sizeable bilateral aid programme - and then stood aside while the results of an election were, in effect, nullified. Egypt, a young democracy without the support of well-established institutions, is going through a conflict between liberalism and majoritarianism that is not uncommon elsewhere. The consequences of that struggle will reverberate across West Asia and North Africa. It isn't unstinting support that Egyptians need through this knotty question. What they need is a reminder from more mature democracies, such as India, that constitutional values run both ways: in a respect for majority voting and in the sanctity of minority rights.
