A quick analysis of the situation

The situation is evolving so rapidly that I hesitate to put thoughts down. Still, here's my take on what's happening:

1. Although we still don't have details about what powers Mubarak has transferred to Suleiman, it's become pretty evident that Suleiman is in charge. 
2. Why then keep Mubarak around? Aside from the loyalty the regime's key men have for Mubarak — Suleiman, Tantawi and Shafiq have 20 years of being close confidantes to him — retaining Mubarak allows them to preserve the sanctity of constitutional authority.
3. Who cares about the constitution? Perhaps not many protestors, but for the regime the constitution represents legitimacy. Mubarak needs to be in place, even if only symbolically, for amendments to the constitution to be made. If the constitution is suspended, then this forces the army to take charge itself (presumably through the Supreme Military Council), which opens the way to demands for civilian government and lifts the last layer of distance that the army has vis-a-vis the people.
4. Why wouldn't the army want to take charge directly? Because it makes it directly accountable to popular demands and opens the way for calls for a new civilian transition government that could challenge or dilute its own authority. A civilian government that could for instance instigate wide-reaching corruption investigations.
5. The army could also be split on this issue, with hour-by-hour negotiations taking place between those who back the protestors' demands and the senior officers. It may also want to avoid an armed clash with the Republican Guards that would seriously destabilize the country and further rob the regime of legitimacy.
6. Have we passed the point that the army is becoming a target of the protestors too? There's always been a core of activists who want to see the end of military dominance over Egypt. It's not clear whether it's the majority, or even if this sentiment is echoed in the wider, silent Egyptian public. The army's key problem (and especially Suleiman's) is that they suck at communicating. Their battle to retain public legitimacy may be lost because of bad PR and tone-deafness.
7. What about the US in all this? The Obama administration has made a good step in returning to an emphasis on transition and the protection of civilians. However, its handling of this crisis has been poor, its statements mealy-mouthed and at times contradictory (esp. between State and the White House). It has shown it has neither control nor particularly good information on developments. This crisis has also revealed one of Obama's core problems, in domestic and foreign affairs: lack of resolve and initiative, to put it kindly. But there's no reason to dwell on this: for now the US is largely irrelevant to the events on the ground. It should keep quiet, back democratic transition, cut off military aid until this is achieved, and start rethinking (as the EU is starting to) its support for dictatorships in the region.

Comments

[alfred]

German newspaper Handelsblatt reports that the people of Egypt have asked the International Criminal Court in Den Haag to investigate Mubarak's crimes against humanity since the protests began. According to the UN more than 300 people had died and many more were illegally imprisioned. Egypt like the US is not contractually bound to the ICC but any government could voluntarily cooperate with the Den Haag court. That leaves Mubarak with two options really, either to flee the country and avoid ICC prosecution or to cling to power. He is choosing the latter, for now, but his days are clearly numbered.

[Issandr El Amrani]

"The people of Egypt' unfortunately has no authority to make such a request...

[Silawa]

Re the army's thinking, it may also be that the senior ranks simply cannot bring themselves to arrest the Rayyis. One can imagine him saying, "Out of the way, dog -- I know you won't shoot me," and pulling it off. Alternately, as you point out, as he is now presumably surrounded by the Republican Guard, it may be that they lack the opportunity to confront him with a unit which they know will follow their orders.

[Demeur]

The U.S. government is stuck in a no win situation. If they back the regime either Mubarak or his hand picked replacement it runs the risk of saying it doesn't support democracy. If they back the people then other governments will question whether they might not be next.

The people in a democracy do indeed have the authority to demand anything they like because in a democracy the people are the government. What's lacking is a constitution that spells out the process where by issues (grievances) can be dealt with in an orderly manner. Maybe the first order of business for Egypt is to write a new constitution and to hold government accountable to it.

[question]

Issandr, what do you think would be the BEST-case situation for Egypt? How should the transition be handled? My apologies if you have already addressed this, in which case just point me to the proper post to read.

[anoutsider]

The US is in an interesting position. The Western media spends so much time discussing what Obama and Clinton's responses should be, yet it's clear that their response, whatever it may be, will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the situation and, indeed, every address they make seems to hurt the US' image more than anything. It is only the beginning of what is likely to be a rough next few years for Western imperialism as the educated and unemployed masses of it's vassal states become aware of the glaring hypocrisy of supporting democracy only when it fits colonial and Israeli interests.

[chickpea]

@anoutsider re "It is only the beginning...": let's hope you're right.

[Sa'ada]

For Egypt, Are Elections the Way Forward?

The people of Egypt are standing at an historic crossroad. But to hear other people tell it, Egyptians are travelling down the highway to democracy. They’ve been stalled for decades but now their engines are revving and they are all but on their way to western style democracy. First stop: free and fair elections.

To all those who died and sacrificed, it would be a disservice to commence this trip without fully examining the destination and any and all alternatives. Required reading before you embark on this journey is Animal Farm by George Orwell. Moral: If new people are put into any version of the same system, no matter how reformed, you will eventually end up with the same results. The problems may be to a lesser degree, more benign, but you will not have the freedom for which people died.

As an American who dabbled in local politics, consider this my postcard from Destination: Democracy. I don’t wish you were here. Sure, I have a vote; I have a voice, but it is not heard. If you have a voice which you can’t use, are you in a worse position than one who can use their voice, unheard? What is the difference?

"Although Bahrain has a parliamentary system, many Shias feel elections have only served to co-opt them into the political system and did not improve their access to government jobs and services." (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201121251854857192.html - 2-12-11)

So, apparently, no difference. Free elections only encourage those who would, to achieve power, do and say anything, those with no scruples, the lowest of our low. Anyone who says they want to run for a political office should be immediately disqualified from politics. The process of running for office does not appeal to anyone who is, at heart, a good honest person. Isn’t that who we need now, good honest people?

There should never be a political class, a group of people who make their living as politicians. The political class is insulated, protected from the very people whom they are supposed to represent. How then, can politicians represent people?

Is there another way, a different road to take? First, decide what your destination is. For the voices of the people to be heard. For the will of the people to be enacted. To be free; to rule ourselves.

Well, it’s clear that free democratic elections won’t get you there. I suggest the direct route. Fill all political offices by lottery. It works for jury duty. I haven’t heard of that system being corrupt, beyond people trying to get undeserved exemptions. It works for military duty except, again, people trying to get exempted.

The people of Egypt could vote on the framework of the system. Who is included in the pool? How often can people from the same family be eligible for duty? Should eligibility for national positions rotate geographically?

During a term officers should receive a stipend equal to %200 of their salary from the previous year. They should continue to live in their house amongst their neighbors. It should be seen as a simple matter of changing jobs . Then after they have served a term or two they will go back to their old job.

Enough! of political intrigue and manipulation. Enough! of corporate interests before those of the people. Enough! of rule by the rich for the rich. Politicians are a scourge and they do not represent people. We the people should start to begin to represent and rule ourselves. In this age of crowdsourcing we know that we can create, we can collaborate. Yes, WE can. Not ‘we can get him elected to change things’; WE can make change.

If you don’t take this opportunity to now try something new you will regret it. For the highway to democracy is actually a ring road. Eventually you will end up where you started and you will see your grandchildren in Tahrir Square. But, they will go home unsuccessful, unheard. Because, they will live in a democracy and they will have a vote.

[abdul majid]

I would advise the protesters (I support them) that instituting revenge against the fallen regime should not be the priority. Organise the steps you want taken and make them known to the army, emphasising that army rule is the last thing you want and that the army's prime role is to maintain peace. Speak with one voice so that the army will have to listen: civilians on top of the army and not the other way round. You may have to compromise, eg let the army's business conglomerates stay a while while you plan civilian control. Physical confrontation with the army should be avoided.