Egypt

Whether revolutions devour their own children often depends on the ability of a post-revolutionary government to deliver political freedom, jobs and services. Egypt is no different. If the economy opens up, then the country's transition to democracy is likely to continue. If not, then anything can happen. So, which will it be? The stock exchange has reopened and is doing better than many expected. The government is bullish about growth, but it is hard to see where it will come from. Tourists, who account for a major part of the economy, are staying at home. Hotels are empty and BA is cancelling flights due to lack of passengers. The uncertainty about Egypt's future economic path is also deterring investors.

Driving through post-revolution Cairo at night is eerie. The normally busy streets are deserted, most of the city's  squares and roads are blocked by military checkpoints, and dark clad figures slip in and out of the shadows. Breaking the curfew may result in a six month sentence, or worse. Come dawn, however, the city springs to life, looking like it has done for millennia — busy, noisy, lively. This tale of two cities — one cowered, quiet and run by the military, and another that is lively, chaotic and civilian — is perhaps a tale not only of Cairo, but of Egypt in the midst of an ongoing transition. For though Hosni Mubarak has gone, the military underpinnings of his 30-odd year regime are more powerful than ever before.

The debacle in Bahrain cuts close to the British bone. The Ministry of Defence has helped train at least 100 Bahraini officers and supplied a range of equipment to the Gulf state. Egypt was important because of its regional role and ties to the United States. But there was no link to London, anymore than there was one to Paris or Berlin. Bahrain is different. Only a few months ago, British officials were applauding the Khalifa dynasty for taking steps towards democracy. But the fact is simple: the steps were insufficient – not by British standards, but by Bahraini ones. It should serve as a wake-up call to the Foreign Office and those in government with close ties to Bahrain.

Events in Bahrain are yet another reminder of why the supposed choice between stability and democracy is a false one. The idea that in the medium to long term backing a Sunni monarchy in a Shiite majority country is a recipe for stability is absurd. If this was not enough, by backing the minority monarchy the West is ensuring that, for obvious reasons, the opposition to it will become radicalised and anti-Western. The West is where it is. It, sadly, cannot start again from scratch in the Middle East. But it cannot allow itself to continue being the allies of those who brutally repress the aspirations of their own peoples - a policy that would ensure this troubled part of the world grows even more hostile to Western interests.

In a few weeks, the World Bank will issue its Development Report, a document of canonical importance to the DfiDs of the world. But the recent events in Egypt will make it useful reading for laymen too. The reason: it shows empirically - having looked at hundreds conflicts in hundred of countries - that young democracies are much more vulnerable to conflict than either mature democracies or authoritarian states. This means that when fostering transition, the international community encounters faces a dilemma: do we push for stability, or do we push for democracy? We may not be able to get both, in the short term. In the long term, democracy is more stable than authoritarian rule. But in the short term, there are sharp trade-offs that have to be confronted.