Questions 40 - 45 are based on the following text.

   
    What is happening in Egypt is the latest example of the interplay between democracy, protest and government efficacy. Democracy is a way of deciding the decision-makers, but it is not a substitute for making the decision. I remember an early conversation with some young Egyptians shortly after President Mubarak's downfall. They believed that, with democracy, problems would be solved. When I probed on the right economic policy for Egypt, they simply said that it would all be fine because now they had democracy: chance of working.

    I am a strong supporter of democracy. But democratic government does not on its own mean effective government. Today, efficacy is the challenge. When governments do not deliver, people protest. In fact, as Turkey and Brazil show, they can protest even when, on any objective basis, countries have made huge progress. But as countries move from low to middle income status, the people's expectations rise. They want quality services, better housing, good infrastructure, especially transport.

    This is a sort of free democratic spirit that operates outside the convention of democracy that elections decide the government. It is enormously fuelled by social media, itself a revolutionary phenomenon. And it moves very fast in precipitating crisis. It is not always consistent or rational. A protest is not a policy, or a placard a programme for government. But if governments don't have a clear argument with which to rebut the protest, they're in trouble.

    In Egypt, the government's problems were compounded by resentment at the ideology and intolerance of the Muslim Brotherhood. Across the Middle East, for the first time, and this is a positive development, there is open debate about the role of religion in politics. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood's superior organization, there is probably a majority for an intrinsically secular approach to government in the region.

    Society can be deeply imbued with religious observance, but people are starting to realize that democracy only works as a pluralistic concept where faiths are respected and where religion has a voice, not a veto. For Egypt, a nation with an immense and varied civilization, around 8 million Christians and a young population who need to be connected to the world, there isn't really a future as an Islamic state that aspires to be part of a regional caliphate.

What can be inferred from paragraph 2?