This year is an important one for national elections around the world. Egypt completed its elections this month by electing an Islamist parliament. Russia will hold presidential elections in March, and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who already has had two terms as president, is expected to win handily, though popular demonstrations across Russia mean he will govern with less authority.

In April, France will also hold presidential elections, and it is touch and go that President Nicolas Sarkozy will be re-elected. Finally, the United States will hold its own presidential elections in November, with Republicans trying to make them a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency during bleak economic times. Democrats, led by the president, will present what they believe is a different, more inclusive vision of America than that held by the Republicans.

The Egyptian elections, however, command our immediate attention, not only because they are the most recent, but because what happens in Egypt deeply affects the entire Middle East and therefore affects the rest of the world. Egypt, with more than 80 million people, is by far the region's biggest country, while its economy is second only to that of oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Egyptian armed forces are the biggest in the Middle East, though Israel's battle-tested and superbly trained military, backed up by nuclear weapons, still holds the upper hand. The key geo-political fact here is that without Egypt, the Arabs cannot make war against Israel. That is why peace with Egypt is so important for Israel. In the world of religion, Cairo's Al Azar mosque is the most authoritative Sunni voice in the Middle East. In other words, Egypt matters.

One year ago, on Jan. 25, 2011, Egypt erupted in mass protests following the uprising in Tunisia that toppled a despised authoritarian regime. The Tunisian revolt inspired the Egyptians to bring down the heavy-handed regime of President Hosni Mubarak, in power since 1981 after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. Young, liberal demonstrators united temporarily with the more conservative and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood to bring down the regime. It took 18 days to topple Mubarak. The deciding factor was the decision by the military to support the revolutionaries and not Mubarak. It was a breathtaking moment in the history of Egypt and the Middle East.

Initially, the military was seen as the linchpin of the transition to a more democratic regime. Islamists hoped the military would support early elections, which they thought they could win. As it turns out, they were right. Liberals saw the more secular military as a bulwark against Islamist power. Washington saw the military as a partner that would help to secure American interests.

During the course of 2011, however, the military made repeated moves to grab power. Egyptians wondered whether they had traded in one military regime for another. Things got so bad that in November 2011, thousands of protesters poured into Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo, the main site of protests that had brought down Mubarak. An estimated 40 people were cut down by the military on the eve of the first round of parliamentary elections.

Nevertheless, the elections went ahead, with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood getting some 47 percent of the vote, with the much more radical Islamist Salafi party getting about a quarter of the vote. The more secular and liberal parties got the rest. That pattern was repeated in the second and final round of elections earlier this month.

The struggle for power in Egypt is now a three-cornered contest between the revolutionaries, the Islamists and the army. None of the three is united and all of them are being transformed by the situation in which they find themselves.

The young revolutionaries, basically leaderless and anarchic, are in danger of being marginalized. They remain the conscience of the revolution but are no match for either the Islamists or the military.

The Islamists have won an overwhelming victory in the parliamentary elections, but they are challenged by the need to reach some kind of national consensus. To govern effectively they must reassure the secularists, the Christians and women, all of whom deeply distrust them. They are also constrained by the power of the military.

The military wants to retain its perks and privileges, which are considerable as they own a good part of the national economy, but at the same time they do not like playing a public role. In the writing of a new constitution, now in the hands of the Islamists, they want to ensure they retain a major role in the life of the country. In other words, the revolution is not yet over as the internal forces of Egypt struggle for a new balance of power.

Bill Stewart, a former Foreign Service officer and correspondent for Time magazine, lives in Santa Fe. He writes weekly on current affairs.