By: Prof. Gusti Hardiansyah
Professor at Universitas Tanjungpura / Chair of ICMI West Kalimantan
The speech delivered by DPD RI Chairman Sultan B. Najamudin at the closing of the Silaknas and the 35th Anniversary of ICMI in Bali was far more than a ceremonial address. It contained major claims, regulatory promises, implicit critiques of development models, and an attempt to reframe the roles of youth and intellectuals.
On the ICMI stage, Sultan did not speak only of aspirations; he touched on wounds—floods in Sumatra, regional fiscal disparities, the fate of Indigenous communities, and the risks of a democracy that ignores nature. Yet behind the eloquently delivered lines lie several questions that must be raised—so that the speech does not remain merely an inspiring narrative, but is tested as a concrete political work agenda.
The DPD as a “Mega Faction” and the Promise of Six Strategic Bills
Sultan reminded the audience that the DPD RI has 152 members—equivalent, he said, to “74.7 million votes,” describing the DPD as a “mega party,” although it is not formally a political party. The message was clear: the DPD is not an accessory of state structure but a legitimate political actor with strong public legitimacy.
This claim was strengthened by a key statement: within just one month of being inaugurated as Chairman, he submitted six DPD-initiated bills which are now included in the priority National Legislative Program. These include:
- Climate Change Bill
- Indigenous Peoples Bill
- Archipelagic Regions Bill
- Regional Governance Bill
- Regional-Owned Enterprises (BUMD) Bill
- A bill related to regional spatial planning/architecture
If this list materializes, the DPD will be recorded not merely as an advisory body but as a producer of strategic regulatory ideas. Yet here, investigative questions must be asked:
- Will these bills emerge in strong form, or be “watered down” in the political process at the DPR and within the government?
- Who stands to benefit, and who might be disadvantaged by each of these bills—particularly the Climate Change Bill and the Indigenous Peoples Bill, which directly intersect with major corporate interests in mining, palm oil, and energy?
- Will the DPD truly uphold regional interests, or become entangled in the push-and-pull between central power and oligarchic interests?
Sultan expressed haqqul-yakin that good laws will be produced during his tenure. In the context of Indonesian politics, such conviction must be read not as certainty but as a promise that demands public scrutiny.
Sumatra Floods: Has Nature Ever Been Angry?
One of the most emotional parts of Sultan’s speech addressed the floods in Aceh, West Sumatra, and North Sumatra. He described his intensive communication with senators from Sumatra, his visits to evacuation sites, and efforts to support affected communities, acknowledging that hundreds of families are still unaccounted for.
He then offered a reflective line:
“Nature is never angry; it is we who are often negligent.”
On one hand, this is a critique of how we treat the environment. On the other hand, it raises further questions: negligent by whom?
- Is this negligence solely at the level of society, or also at the governmental level, which grants mining, palm oil, and land-clearing permits without strict spatial planning safeguards?
- In an era of massive plantation and mining permits, to what extent will the DPD—now championing the Climate Change Bill—scrutinize sectoral policies that undermine environmental carrying capacity?
- Through the Archipelagic Regions Bill and the Climate Bill, will the DPD push for fiscal and political sanctions for regions or agencies that disregard ecological limits?
From Bali, Sultan called for development to be fast but not destructive, and growth to be high but not at the expense of life. Yet without the courage to confront business structures and licensing regimes that form the roots of ecological vulnerability, this call risks remaining a noble motto rather than a policy roadmap.
Demographic Bonus, AI, and the Repositioning of Intellectuals
Sultan proposed a new framing for the role of youth. He rejected the cliché “young people are the heirs of the nation” and replaced it with:
“Young people are the determinants of the nation’s direction.”
This phrasing is simple, yet political. It positions youth not as spectators waiting their turn but as drivers of history. Amid the demographic bonus—which he described as a “double-edged sword”—this message touches the core issue: will youth remain a liability, or become a strategic opportunity?
At the same time, he acknowledged that AI has taken over much cognitive work, robots replace physical labor, and nearly all knowledge is available with a click. His conclusion:
“What remains and cannot be replaced is the heart, the conscience, the moral soul.”
Here, he restores ICMI’s role: not merely as a repository of intellect but as guardian of the nation’s moral compass. The questions that follow:
- Has ICMI been sufficiently bold in criticizing policies that harm the environment and impoverish communities, or is it still too comfortable within the soft confines of seminars and mild recommendations?
- Are young ICMI members given room to speak boldly, or only groomed as “polite successors” who do not disturb elite comfort?
Sultan’s speech appeared to call ICMI toward a more progressive stance. However, this call will be tested when intellectual voices confront political and economic interests.
Green Democracy: Between Concept and Commitment
The concept of Green Democracy, which he formulated and patented as “Hope and Balance,” was the core of his narrative. Democracy, he argued, must not be confined to voting booths; it must be present:
- in paddy fields,
- in villages,
- in forests,
- in classrooms,
- on the plates of ordinary citizens,
- and in the air we breathe.
Within this framework, the DPD claims to promote:
- fiscal justice for regions safeguarding forests and seas,
- recognition of Indigenous territories.
- lex specialis treatment for 18 archipelagic provinces through the Archipelagic Regions Bill.
While this appears aligned with ecological justice, investigative scrutiny raises further questions:
- Will fiscal justice mechanisms reduce regional dependence on natural resource exploitation, or simply add financial instruments without altering extractive orientations?
- Will Indigenous territorial recognition be protected from the criminalization of local communities in conflicts with corporations and state apparatus.
- Will the Archipelagic Regions Bill genuinely address the real needs of island regions—logistics, education, health, and disaster mitigation—or merely expand legal provisions without adequate budgeting?
Green Democracy gains meaning only when accompanied by clear commitment: siding with ordinary citizens, Indigenous communities, and future generations who will bear the costs of ecological damage.
From Bali, Guarding Hope and Balance
In closing, Sultan declared:
“A democracy that ignores nature is a democracy digging its own grave.”
This line deserves to be recorded, quoted, and repeated. But more importantly, it warrants political accountability.
If it is true that a democracy neglecting the environment digs its own grave, then:
- every legislative revision that loosens licensing,
- every tolerance of illegal logging and mining,
- every infrastructure project that harms coastal and forest ecosystems,
must be viewed as part of that grave-digging.
This speech in Bali may mark one of two things:
- The beginning of a new chapter for a more progressive, ecologically grounded, and boldly aligned DPD RI; or
- A beautifully crafted narrative that fades into political routine without producing strong regulatory outcomes.
Here, the roles of ICMI and the public become essential: not merely applauding, but documenting, remembering, and monitoring each promise made.
Green Democracy, Hope and Balance, the demographic bonus, and the wounds of Sumatra—these are not merely rhetorical materials but serious agendas that must continually be challenged and audited by the public conscience.
