Why Was Ostracism Not Implemented In Western Democracies?

A 2500 Year Old Procedure
To Ban A Person From Public Office

I only recently learnt more details about this procedure applied during the democracy of ancient Athens. For details about this procedure see, e.g. here. Generally, the idea to ban someone from public service for a period of time (e.g. 10 years) by popular vote is appealing and worth some consideration.

Supposed Modern Western Democracies Analogues

I believe, political scientists, historians, and politicians would argue that Ostracism is not necessary anymore because voters can vote any candidate or incumbent out of office at election time or they can in some instances possibly request a recall election.

I think these kind of arguments miss the point. Any candidate or incumbent who lost can retry at the next election in same or other electoral district or be appointed for public service or party office etc. and continue public service.

One explanation why Ostracism or anything similar was not implemented in Western Democracies because it could be such a powerful retardant to the aspirations of power hungry as well as power and control loving politicians of which there are too many.

In Defense Of Ostracism

The idea of Ostracism, as I understand it, is more like effectively banning a person from any public office for a period of time by popular vote for any reason or no reason at all initiated by a popular referendum. Ostracism should be an instrument to achieve better government by consent of the governed.

I believe, the only existing constitutional procedure that in its effect comes close to Ostracism is absolute life time term limits or term limits with the option to return after a period of time out for elected public office. However, term limits are still far too rare in Western Democracies. E.g. there are no term limits for members of the U.S. Congress.