He was, arguably, one of the country's greatest presidents. Like the great Sultans of the archipelago's ancient kingdoms, he flogged the nation to the brink of greatness. Closer than ever to realizing Indonesia's true potential.

But alas, in hindsight, we discovered too late that his eminence was built on corrosive and often bloody foundations that eventually regressed the nation to near ruin.

This dichotomy is, perhaps, one reason why this nation has not been able to come to terms with its second president. Conceivably, being too close to history may also contribute to our lack of forethought in defining our relationship with Soeharto.

The Jakarta Court of Appeal's judgment last week supporting the Attorney General's decision to suspend prosecution of Soeharto's graft case in no way represents a coda in the drawn out post-power saga of the former president.

The verdict came in response to a suit filed in a district court by several organizations in reaction to the controversial May 11 decision by the prosecution. Though the South Jakarta District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal eventually overturned the decision after it was challenged by the prosecutor's office.

Fade away, is perhaps how many would wish the "Soeharto question" to be put to an end. Such a solution is most pragmatic.

But he is too important, too great and too despised to become a fleeting memory of history. On the contrary, we are all mere footnotes on the unfinished manuscript of Soeharto's great chronicle. He accounts for half of this republic's history, in the role of a divine and benevolent authoritarian, he has also been reviled as the nation's jailer and finally as a thief.

Three generations of Indonesians are the children of his contradictions, and they cannot now make up their minds whether or not to disown Bapak Pembangunan, the Father of Development.

It would have been so much easier during those fateful days in May 1998 if Soeharto had been dethroned by force. But he "cheated" us out of a much-needed catharsis by resigning from office.

Consequently there are now three points of view: Those who would spit on him and make it their life's mission to shatter the former president's serene life of feeding his pet-birds at home; those who miss his warm smile and are too eager to forgive him; and finally the majority who cannot be bothered to look at the past while their future seems so bleak.

But it is not a question of lynching, forgiving nor forgetting. It is a question of closure. A symbolic end that would have lasting therapeutic effects.

At present, none of the alternatives by themselves provide the necessary catharsis for this nation to move on.

The Court of Appeal's verdict may pave the way for the penchant of senior political leaders, including those in the Palace, towards giving him an amnesty.

The question is how is it possible to forgive when guilt has not been conceded? What are the crimes to be absolved?

Amnesty without legal conviction also creates a hazardous precedence by indirectly extending impunity to cronies, comrades and cohorts of Soeharto's New Order.

But by the same token one also has to ask whether a long drawn-out legal battle based on limited evidence would serve the country any good.

Dragging an 85-year-old man to court and then throwing him in jail would only inspire sympathy for a man who tortured the lives of thousands while in office. Meanwhile a judgment of not guilty by the court would only infuriate anti-Soehartoists and further tarnish the court's reputation as the fearful toady to men in power.

Eventually a political solution may indeed be the best path to a question which only history will be able to settle. A solution -- perhaps through an MPR decree -- which defines culpability yet is grounded in respect for a man who was not all good, yet not all bad either.

Most importantly, it must be a solution which should be exclusive to Soeharto without the possibility of it being used as a shield by others liable for crimes during the New Order era.

It is a solution which does not need to be taken immediately, yet requires some haste in its formulation.

Let our grandchildren know exactly what to think of the country's second president. Let us all move on with our heads held high knowing that morally we did the right thing.