Thank you, sir.
I can't answer that question without confessing that certainly we could have been in a much better environment today, five years after the first time we had parliamentary elections and a national process. Had we been in a better situation, where we would have had a more secure country, much stronger civil society institutions, we probably would have had a next parliament that would have been, without any reservations, a great improvement over the previous one.
That's not to diminish the importance and value of the first parliament. If anyone were to ask me if there was value in having the first parliament, despite all its drawbacks and shortcomings I would say absolutely, without any reservations. It did a great job.
In the next parliament we'll do the same. It will improve, and in fact it's better than it could have been given the circumstances. We were fearful before the elections about whether enough women candidates would come forward, for example, particularly given the security environment, whether other independent contenders would come forward, and whether the elections would happen in the first place. I think all those concerns have now been addressed. There were enough women who came out.
From what I know, and from the preliminary elections, I think a lot of those people have the people's confidence. They had the votes. It did take place; it will take place in the next parliament.
As I said, I think they have to be seen in the context of the ongoing situation in Afghanistan. Security is not just having an impact on the troops who are fighting there, or in terms of the general development of the country; it's going to have an impact on all aspects of life in Afghanistan, including politics.
Politics will only mature and become better when we have a country that's secure. It will definitely be a big improvement on the last parliament, but we still have a long way to go before we can have a parliament that resembles this great House.