Ecosipation and Critique of the Objectification of Nature

The concept of ecosipation explains that humans must participate as citizens of the ecosystem by rejecting the subject-object relationship between humans and nature. The President is not the owner of the land, not the owner of the water, not the owner of the air. The President is only one entity in the web of life, whose authority must be measured through the values of sustainability and ecological justice. Managing a country is not the same as managing a company. Therefore, the spirit of managing natural resources needs to be the basic principle of the policies of those in power. Unfortunately, many policies make nature an exploitative object: mines are controlled for the profit of corporations and elites, not for justice for the people and the ecosystem. The statement of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources, Bahlil Lahadalia, alluded to the attitude of developed countries: “Developed countries also used to cut down forests and mine for development. Who protested them at that time? … When Indonesia wants to take added value from natural resources for the welfare of the people, why does someone feel disturbed?” Bahlil's statement, in the paradigm of environmental ethics, illustrates how the discourse of development is often colored by power bias: the exploitation of nature is considered legitimate if it is in the name of added value or national sovereignty. In fact, ecosipation turns its back on this paradigm to emphasize that protecting nature is not an obstacle to development, but a prerequisite for sustainability. Thus, the powerful presidential system must not pursue economic growth without ecological ethical limits. The President and his cabinet should reject the narrative of exploiting historical legitimacy as expressed by Minister Bahlil, and instead choose policies that glorify the voice of the ecosystem: respecting the rights of water, land, air, and other life without reduction to mere objects of production.

Towards Eco-Presidentialism

In the presidential system after the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, the President has great power in designing and executing development policies. The amendment has affirmed a relatively clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, checks and balances between state institutions do not automatically guarantee ethical control over environmental policies. Therefore, the Indonesian presidential system must be enriched with the principle of ecological checks and balances — namely the existence of ethical limits in policies that have an impact on the environment. The 1945 Constitution mandates that the state protects all Indonesian people and all Indonesian blood. This sentence cannot only be interpreted in terms of territorial and military security. “Indonesian blood” must also be interpreted as including forests that groan when burned, rivers that are polluted by mining waste, and air that is full of pollutants. Thus, our presidential system should interpret the constitutional mandate as an ecological mandate: that the president's power is to protect, not to control. Power that is not bound by ecological ethical limits will ultimately become destructive power. As Lord Acton said:power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This can be interpreted as absolute power over nature will lead to mutual destruction. Thus, the greatest responsibility of a president in a presidential system is not to print growth figures, but to care for the earth as a collective legacy across generations.