Scylla and Charybdis

I. The Myth

Odysseus had to sail through a strait. On one side lurked Scylla, a six-headed monster that devoured sailors. On the other side Charybdis, a whirlpool that swallowed entire ships.

He couldn't avoid both. The strait was too narrow. He had to choose: lose six men to Scylla or the whole ship to Charybdis. He chose Scylla. Six men died. The ship sailed on.

This is the primal scene of tragic choice. No good option. Only the question of which evil is lesser.

The Germans have another expression for this: The choice between plague and cholera. Both kill. You can only choose how you die.

II. The Election

On February 23, 2025, Germany elected a new parliament. The result was exactly what polls had predicted: CDU/CSU ahead with 28.5%, SPD crashed to 16.4%, AfD doubled to 20.8%, FDP and BSW out.

The government that emerged: a grand coalition under Friedrich Merz. Exactly what nobody wanted. Exactly what everyone expected. On May 6, 2025, the Merz cabinet took office.

The mood in the country was resignation. Not enthusiasm for change, but exhaustion with what existed. People didn't vote for something. They voted against something. Or they voted for the lesser evil.

Merz or Scholz. Both uninspiring. Both part of the problem. Both without vision for the future. The question wasn't: Who leads the country to a better future? The question was: Who does less damage?

Now, almost a year later, the grand coalition governs. Has anything changed? This wasn't democracy. This was damage control.

III. The Causes

How did it come to this? Why does the political system only offer choices between evils?

First: Convergence. The major parties have moved toward each other. CDU and SPD, once opposites, are hardly distinguishable today. Both for Europe, both for NATO, both for the debt brake (or against it, depending on the day), both for compromises on migration, both for renewable energy. The big questions are decided — or treated as decided. What remains are nuances.

Second: Negative selection. The political system doesn't reward the best, but the most adaptable. Those who want careers must navigate party structures, make compromises, cultivate networks. Those with their own ideas cause friction. Those who cause friction don't advance. In the end, the smooth ones remain, the cautious, the mediocre.

Third: Market constraints. The big decisions are no longer made in Berlin. They're made in Brussels, in Frankfurt, in the markets. What a German chancellor can decide is limited. The room for maneuver is narrow. So programs resemble each other because reality sets the same limits for everyone.

Fourth: Media logic. Those who want to survive in media must avoid scandals, make no mistakes, say nothing controversial. The bold are punished. The cautious survive. In the end, politicians remain who say nothing because they don't want to risk anything.

Fifth: The voter. Perhaps the politicians we get are the politicians we deserve. We elect the cautious because we ourselves don't want experiments. We punish the bold because we fear change. We complain about mediocrity while confirming it at every election.

IV. The Strategies

How do voters respond to the choice between evils? There are several strategies:

Vote for the lesser evil. The classic strategy. You don't vote for what you want, but for what you reject less. CDU because you can't stand the SPD anymore. SPD because you don't trust Merz. Greens, even though you criticize their policies, because the alternative would be worse. This strategy works — but it cements the system. Those who vote for the lesser evil confirm evil.

Protest vote. You vote AfD or BSW, not because you support their programs, but because you want to punish the establishment. A wake-up call, a slap, an outcry. This strategy signals discontent — but changes nothing. Protest parties are excluded, and the establishment continues governing.

Don't vote. You stay home because no option is acceptable. This strategy is honest — but it's interpreted as disinterest, not protest. Non-voters don't count. They're ignored.

Vote invalid. You go to vote but deliberately invalidate your ballot. A sign that you reject the system but take democracy seriously. This strategy is symbolically clean — but practically ineffective. Invalid votes disappear into statistics.

None of these strategies solves the problem. They're all just variants of dealing with a situation that has no good solution.

V. The System's Logic

The dilemma isn't coincidence. It's systemic.

The electoral system favors large parties. The 5% threshold excludes small alternatives. Media focus on frontrunners. Donations flow to those already leading. Those who aren't already big have little chance of becoming big.

The party system filters out outsiders. Those who want to advance in a party must invest years, build networks, prove loyalty. Lateral entrants are rare and rarely successful. The system reproduces itself.

Coalition logic forces compromises. Every government is a compromise between parties that block each other. Radical positions get smoothed. Ambitious programs get watered down. In the end stands the lowest common denominator — which inspires no one.

Incumbency advantage favors office holders. Those who govern have resources, visibility, power. Challengers must fight against an apparatus. Change is difficult — so it rarely happens. And when it happens, you switch from one evil to another.

The system is built not to produce good elections. It produces stable elections. It produces predictable elections. But not inspiring ones.

VI. The Way Out?

Is there a way out of the strait? Can one escape Scylla and Charybdis simultaneously?

In theory: yes. One could reform the electoral system. Proportional representation without a threshold. Ranked-choice voting. Direct election of the chancellor to bypass parties. Referendums to supplement parliament.

One could open the parties. Primaries like in America, where the base determines candidates. Member votes for coalition agreements. Transparent financing. Term limits.

One could change the media. Less focus on personalities, more on programs. Fewer scandals, more analysis. Fewer predictions, more accountability.

All this would be possible. None of it will happen. Because those who would have to change it are those who profit from the status quo. Why would a party reform a system that brought it to power?

The exit is blocked. Not by impossibility, but by interest.

VII. Acceptance

Perhaps the question is wrong.

Perhaps choosing between evils isn't the problem but the norm. Perhaps politics is never a choice between good and evil, but always between bad and worse. Perhaps democracy isn't meant to find perfect solutions, but to prevent catastrophic ones.

This view isn't cynical. It's realistic. Democracy is a mechanism for damage control. It prevents extremes. It allows corrections. It gives discontent an outlet. But it guarantees no happiness, no progress, no salvation.

The ancient Greeks knew this. Odysseus chose Scylla because Charybdis was worse. He saved the ship by sacrificing six men. That wasn't a good decision. It was the best available.

Perhaps that's all we can expect. Not the right choice. But the less wrong one.

VIII. The Rebellion

And yet: There's another answer. It's dangerous, but it exists.

Odysseus sailed through the strait because he had to. He was on his way home. He had no other route.

But what if you leave the strait? What if you say: I won't play this game anymore? What if you reject the entire logic — not from resignation, but on principle?

Non-voters do this — but passively. They withdraw. They disappear.

Radicals do this — but destructively. They want to destroy the system without knowing what comes after.

There would be a third option: Constructive rebellion. You don't vote for the lesser evil. You don't vote at all — but you organize. You build structures outside the parties. You create alternatives that eventually become too big to ignore.

That's slow. That's laborious. That's uncertain. But it's the only way to circumvent the strait instead of sailing through it.

Most won't take it. They'll keep voting, keep complaining, keep taking the lesser evil. That's understandable. It's also comfortable.

But it's no solution. It's just administration of the inevitable.

Epilogue

In February 2025, Germans voted. Most marked the lesser evil. Some protested. Some stayed home.

The result was: a government nobody wanted. A policy that inspires nobody. A continuation that nobody finds good but everyone accepts.

And in three years? Again. The same choice. The same evils. The same question: Scylla or Charybdis?

Eventually someone will ask: Isn't there another way?

The answer is: Yes. But it doesn't lead through the strait. It leads around it. And for that, you have to be willing to leave the ship.

Most aren't. Not yet.