We know that we can't define division by zero "in any mathematical system that obeys the axioms of a field", because it would be inconsistent with such axioms.
(1) Why can we define $a^0$ ($a\neq 0$) to be $1$? Is it possible to prove that such definition is consistent with any rule of arithmetic? How to conclude that to define $a^0$ ($a\neq 0$) we don't need abolish any other basic rule of arithmetic?
(2) More generally, how to know if a definition is consistent with a given mathematical theory?
There is no general algorithm for determining when a theory is consistent. That is a huge topic which includes Godel's incompleteness theorems. But your specific question is easier.
In Peano arithmetic (with axioms stated using $+,\times$) an exponential function $x^y$ can be defined by recursion $x^0=1$ and $x^{s(y)}=x\times x^{y}$. The axioms prove that functions can be defined recursion. So if you believe (as nearly everyone does) that Peano arithmetic (with axioms stated using $+,\times$) is consistent, then you must believe the extension with that exponential function is consistent.
Since your question mentions basic rules of arithmetic I answered in terms of Peano Arithmetic. If you merely want consistency with the field axioms the question is simpler yet: The field of integers modulo 2 proves consistency of those axioms plus $x^1=x$ and $x^0=1$, by giving a finite model. But this includes very little of arithmetic and notably does not include $x^{(y+z)}=x^y\times x^z$. See "finite field" on Wikipedia.