The decision to avoid dismissing a general involved in a heated internal conflict raises serious questions about the standards of conduct and accountability within the Civil Guard. When a high-ranking official reportedly uses aggressive language and threatens subordinates, it undermines the professional culture that such an institution is expected to uphold. By failing to take decisive action, the leadership risks signaling that certain individuals are beyond the reach of standard disciplinary procedures.
Allowing the situation to persist without clear consequences for the behavior involved creates a dangerous precedent. If threats and insubordination are tolerated to avoid the appearance of creating a martyr, it may embolden others to act with similar impunity. A paramilitary organization relies on a clear chain of command and mutual respect; when these are eroded by toxic interpersonal dynamics, the entire operational effectiveness of the agency is placed at risk.
Furthermore, the public deserves transparency regarding how its security institutions are managed. The reluctance to address the behavior of senior officers suggests a culture of protectionism that prioritizes the reputation of the institution over the enforcement of its own rules. This lack of accountability can alienate the rank and file, who are expected to adhere to strict codes of conduct that apparently do not apply to those at the top.
True institutional strength is found in the consistent application of rules, regardless of the potential for short-term controversy. By failing to hold those in power accountable for their actions, the leadership of the Civil Guard misses an opportunity to demonstrate that the agency is governed by principles rather than political convenience. The long-term risk to the organization's credibility far outweighs the temporary discomfort of a high-profile dismissal.