It has been more than a week since the death of former president Suharto.

His death has stirred controversy on various issues, including his legacy and position in Indonesia's history.

Some condemned his actions and policies during his presidency, especially when those policies are related to human rights and democratic issues.

Yet, his achievements would be romanticised by those who benefited greatly from his economic development achievements and the national stability and order.

Even several world leaders praised his ability to bring stability and growth to the region. And the former President is not alone.

Let's take Vladimir Putin as another example. The Russian president was recently named Time Magazine's Person of the Year. for his success in bringing Russia out from disarray into order in his short time as the country's leader.

This happened despite the fact even Time recognises how his leadership style stifled democracy and caused dissent.

Yet, despite his tough leadership style, the Russians support him overwhelmingly. His approval rating never dropped below 70 per cent.

Thus, the keywords seems to be order, stability and economic achievement, rather than democratic achievement.

Indonesia's democratic experiment is not working well. This only shows there is no "one size fits all" jacket, even in a democracy itself.

Loosely quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas, everything has to be culturally and contextually fit into the new culture, in this case a nation.

Our pursuit of a Jeffersonian democracy has led the country to many problems.

Our economic development and growth lacks behind our neighbours.

Political turf-war seems to be a priority rather than the public interest. And corruption is now spread into all levels and branches of government, rather than being contained within certain levels or branches of government.

Localities and provinces have to run deficits just to hold elections and they have to set aside so much money to "repay" the people who have paid the political leaders' campaign expenses, instead of using the money for public goods and services.

Some say we need to be patient with the democratic development in Indonesia. Yet, a globalised world does not have any patience.

Everyone competes at lightning pace. In addition to this, unfortunately, respect for a nation comes from the ability to bring order and the achievement of its economic and material wonders, not necessarily from its "democratic" achievement.

And this could be a universally embedded bias.

The world is in awe with past material achievements rather than community or other non-material achievements.

One could not pass the opportunity to visit the Colosseum in Rome and admire it as one of the world's wonders, despite its horrific human tragedy.

One could not stop the world's awe in the Great Wall of China, despite its staggering human costs.

This is just to name a few. And thus, it seems that we, human beings, have a paradox.

We want to keep talking about democracy, and at the same time put higher admiration on material and economic wonders and achievements, despite its "undemocratic" means.

Much research has shown democracy has negative, or at least neutral, and not positive impacts on economic growth.

While economic growth alone should not be the measurement of one nation's success, it has become one of the most important measures.

A democracy needs an infrastructure that could ensure the stability of the nation.

It is only prudent to ensure a democratic progress in Indonesia also remembers order and stability as part of its element.

A hastened democracy would only lead to chaos and uncertainty, the kind of chaos and uncertainty that brought back President Putin in Russia.

That is also the kind of democratic chaos that brought then president Sukarno with his "Guided Democracy in the late 1950s and early 1960s" and the kind of democratic chaos that brought Suharto into power for decades.

Therefore, democracy in itself has to be gradual and evolutionary.

In addition, people should not forget about duties and responsibilities, not merely rights afforded by a democracy.

Using former president Soeharto as an example, while Indonesia needs to admit that Soeharto used a rather heavy pair of hands during his presidency, his achievements should not be brushed aside outright.

His policies led to steady economic growth.

While order, growth and democracy should not be put on opposite ends, the fact is we need order in order to talk about democracy, life and individual liberty.

I would still argue for a continuing ascent to a democratic constitutional republic and I am proud of Indonesia's achievements in this decade of reform.

In addition, I am not arguing against democracy in itself, nor am I arguing for a dictatorship.

However, using a very simple argument that a friend of mine from Russia has, "How can you debate democracy when you are hungry and your people do not have anything to eat".

I would also emphasise the need of bringing about stability and order.

Being a pragmatist, Indonesia needs an order now, before we can further talk about democracy.

And, whether we like it or not, Suharto was able to secure one during his presidency.

Despite the controversies over his presidency, for various and sometimes legitimate reasons, Indonesia needs to understand that she can not import a Jeffersonian democracy without any gradual maturity on democracy and a contextualisation of its application into Indonesia's culture.

And one cannot speak on the issues of democracy without first having settled basic necessities and order.

And, to have order, a tough leadership style is sometimes needed.