Cairo's Liberation Square

Tuesday was one of Egypt's most important days as an independent country. As Mubarak admitted in a tardy speech, the regime cannot remain the same after thousands of demonstrators filled Tahrir Square in Cairo. Mubarak announced he would not run in the next elections; neither will his succession be a hereditary one as he intended. The passivity of the army, which has termed the protests legitimate, and the decreasing belligerence of the police, made it seem likely that the demonstrators would stay in the square until Mubarak steps down. Wednesday's violence against the demonstrators, however, makes the situation less clear.

The political convulsion in the Arab world demands that other countries take sides, between the aspirations of subjugated populations and the complex interplay of internal and international interests, which have kept the tyrants in power. Pronouncing in favor of Mubarak are those Arab autocrats who see in his fortunes a reflection of their own. So is the Israeli government, moved by a limited, shortsighted and certainly mistaken view of the interests of Israel. At least expressly, this has not been the case of the United States, or of the European Union, which, in spite of their fears and uncertainties concerning the events in North Africa, have opted to call for an orderly transition and the holding of free and fair elections. On Tuesday President Obama called on Mubarak not to run again. Europe has delayed too long in taking this line, but it will be a grave mistake if, once adopted, the EU does not persist in it.

The necessary caution about a process of uncertain outcome cannot, however, blur the line between the right option and the wrong one. The demonstrators' aspirations must not be thwarted by the fact that Hosni Mubarak represents the continuity of a status quo that the international community has so far lived with. Misery, corruption and tyranny are not an acceptable price for cooperation, when it is the Egyptians who must pay it.

The unknowns of the situation are now turning the spotlight on Egyptians of recognized international prestige, such as Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa and the Nobel winner Ahmed Zewail who, if need be, might oversee a transition until elections are held. The US has already begun talks with ElBaradei, the former head of the UN's atomic energy agency. But the role of any of these figures can hardly go beyond that of ensuring a transition, because not even their international relevance can substitute what the demonstrators are demanding in Liberty Square and in other Egyptian cities: the right to elect their government. If these figures now hold the limelight, it is simply because Mubarak does not even have the credibility to lead the country he has maltreated for decades in the direction of democratic elections.

Tahrir, the name of the demonstrators' Cairene square, means liberation in Arabic. Egypt is entering a period in which, with Mubarak departed, this name may become a reality. This depends on the Egyptians, but also on the position taken by the world's principal powers. It might be disastrous if they take the wrong side, betraying the democratic ideals they claim to stand for.