EDISIKINI.COM —
Today, people can criticize the government in just a few seconds through social media. A tweet, a short video, or a meme can spread very quickly and reach millions of people. Because of this, many people wonder whether literature is still relevant as a tool to criticize the government. Has literature lost its influence because social media is faster and more popular?
The answer is not simply yes or no. Literature is still relevant, but today its biggest challenge is not writing criticism. It is making sure that people understand the criticism correctly.
Throughout Indonesian history, literature has played an important role in expressing social and political criticism. Writers have used novels, poems, and plays to speak about injustice, corruption, abuse of power, and inequality. When people could not criticize the government directly, literature became another way to express their ideas. Through symbols, metaphors, irony, and satire, writers could deliver criticism without saying everything openly.
However, today’s situation is different. The problem is no longer whether criticism can be written.
The real problem is how that criticism is interpreted.
One of the biggest challenges is that literary works are often misunderstood. A story that is meant to criticize those in power may instead be seen as supporting them. Symbols that are written as satire can be interpreted as praise. A character who represents a corrupt or authoritarian leader may even be admired for being strong and powerful. Instead of realizing that the story is criticizing them, those in power may see themselves as the heroes of the story.
This shows that the meaning of literature depends not only on the writer but also on the reader. Literature allows different interpretations, but when criticism is repeatedly read as praise, its social function becomes weaker. The problem is not that literature has lost its voice. The problem is that many readers choose the interpretation that is most comfortable for them.
Another issue is how people in power respond to criticism today. In a healthy democracy, criticism should encourage leaders to reflect on their decisions and improve their policies. However, criticism is often treated as an attack instead of valuable feedback. Some leaders see themselves as victims who must defend their position, rather than as public officials who should listen to criticism. As a result, they focus more on protecting their image than on understanding the message behind the criticism.
This creates an interesting paradox. Literature is written to encourage reflection, but reflection can only happen if readers are willing to question themselves. If those in power refuse to see criticism as criticism, then literature cannot fully achieve its purpose. The work itself has not changed, but the way people read it has.
Even so, it would be unfair to say that literature is no longer relevant. Unlike social media posts, which are often forgotten after a few days, literary works can survive for many years. A novel or a poem can continue to inspire new readers and encourage them to think critically about society. Literature may not create instant political change, but it can slowly shape public awareness and influence future generations.
For this reason, perhaps the real question is not whether literature is still relevant as a tool to criticize the government. A question that we need to focus on is whether we are still willing to read criticism honestly, instead of turning it into praise.
Literature has not lost its critical power.
What has changed is the way many people respond to it. When criticism is misunderstood as support and when those in power are more interested in protecting themselves than reflecting on their actions. The problem is no longer literature. The problems in how we read, understand, and respond to criticism itself.
By Nur Aliyah
