I must say I was skeptical that the Egyptians could pull this off. I was expecting to see a result more like the Tiananmen Square massacre, as I'm well aware of the military reality of the situation. The Egyptian protesters were incredibly brave risking horrible vengeance if they had lost (as I was expecting).
The situation now is that we appear to have moved from Mubarak rule to military rule rather than Suleiman rule. ie more-or-less a military coup (triggered by the protests) - the same as we had in Tunisia.
Basically everything is up for grabs now. With the old political side completely sidelined, it's a question of what Tantawi chooses to do. Well - nominally. Tantawi won't have the absolute loyalty of everyone under him either. He'll be in a weaker position than Mubarak was in. There will be dissent throughout the entire armed forces. It's essentially a chaotic situation - where the (as far as I can tell) genetic trait to subjugate comes into play. If this was a tribal situation, Tantawi or anyone else would be willing to do anything at all (mass murder etc) that is required to ensure that he gets to be the new ruler (and thus pass on his genes), rather than some rival. This is why the Middle East has had wall-to-wall dictators for so long - it's the natural state of humans.
The situation in Egypt is somewhat different though. Tantawi will know that he doesn't remotely have what he needs to be the new supreme dictator of Egypt. So the natural human tendency will probably be suppressed. Although I should temper that with:
1. We don't have a great track record in Middle Eastern history as to what happens in this situation. Tunisia is about the only exception - and even that isn't proven for sure yet.
2. My previous prediction that Mubarak would survive was wrong, so I don't have a good track record on predicting the future myself.
Anyway, with the stated goal (ie by definition - this forum is the wrong place to be if you have a goal of an Iran-like theocracy) of achieving liberal democracy rather than just "democracy" like you saw in Palestine, where the Palestinians voted for their favourite terrorist organization, in a "one man, one vote, one time" scenario - where do we go from here?
My initial suggestion would be they need something like Turkey has/had - with the military setting some secular ground rules for people to compete under. Other countries have something similar, by other means - e.g. a constitution that guarantees secular rule (should really be extended to disallow rule by any dogma to try to prevent Chavez's communism). The UK has had a House of Lords for centuries. Yes, it's time to abolish that now, but I think Turkey (under EU pressure) abandoned their military's role prematurely. And Egypt obviously hasn't even started such a system.