Ostracism
Last week fellow “cavaliers” of dismissed Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia in the Philippine Military Academy disowned him eight years after the scandal broke concerning his illegally acquired wealth and his family’s extravagant lifestyle, saying he had tarnished the image of the military.
The Philippine Military Academy Alumni Association Inc. said it had expelled Garcia, former chief military comptroller, from its roster after President Aquino confirmed Garcia’s conviction by a military court in December 2005. We hope the PMAAAI will not stop at the case of Garcia and drop from its roster other officers who, because they committed various irregularities, brought shame not only to the PMA but to the entire military profession. And we hope other organizations, whether public or private, would follow the lead of the PMAAAI.
In expelling Garcia from the PMAAAI, his cavaliers carried out a form of the ancient practice of ostracism. Ostracism was a political practice in ancient Greece whereby a prominent citizen who threatened the stability of the state could be banished without bringing any charge against him.
The term was derived from ostrakon, Greek for a piece of broken pottery or potsherd bearing the name of the person whom the voter wanted to be ostracized. The “victorious” candidate was obliged to quit the city and the territory of Athens and to stay out for 10 years, a lifetime in the career of a serious professional politician. For all practical purposes, an ostracized person was politically and civically dead.
Among the victims of the system were Hipparchus, son of Pisastratus, the tyrant; Xanthippus; Aristides; Themistocles; Cimon; and Thucydides.
Through ostracism the Greek people came down extremely hard on elected officials who were deemed to have failed or betrayed them, by say, losing a crucial battle as a general or embezzling funds as a treasurer.
In England, and later, the United States, the “ostracized” person suffered social disfavor or was “sent to Coventry’’ (to send someone to Coventry is to punish him by not speaking to him). In these two countries a subtle (or probably not too subtle) way of ostracizing a politician was to appoint him to the presidency of an obscure college or university or to send him as an envoy to a small, unimportant country.
Here in the Philippines, political ostracism has been generally practiced through removal from office through legal means such as court cases and impeachment and through informal means such as a people power movement. But we do not know of any serious case of “social’’ ostracism. On the contrary, people who have gotten filthy rich by stealing taxpayers’ money, the smuggling of drugs and contraband, getting payoffs from operators of illegal gambling and the despoliation of the country’s natural sources such as its forests are admired and lionized in elite society circles and featured extensively in the media. Because many idolize, instead of ostracizing officials who engage in illegal and immoral activities, many among the young hold them up as their idols.
Contrast this with what people in Argentina did in February 2002 to vent their spleen against banks, corrupt politicians and judges to demand justice for victims of political repression and corruption. They organized pot-and-pan banging demonstrations and other forms of political protests.
Through the protests the people discovered a hitherto unknown power to make themselves heard. The Argentinians had a general mistrust of politicians whom they accused of corruption, opportunism and leading ostentatious luxurious lifestyles on fabulous salaries while 20 percent of the population was unemployed and more than 40 percent live below the poverty line. (Sound familiar?)
Here in the Philippines the PMA cavaliers have taken the first step toward the social ostracism of erring officials. We hope this “social ostracism” movement will catch fire in the country. It’s time we stopped idolizing people in the government and private sectors who are corrupt and who have enriched themselves through dubious, illegal and immoral means. They should instead be treated with contempt and obloquy, and when the evidence warrants, be haled to court and jailed if found guilty.
