The case of a change of government in Ankara is now being taken seriously in Paris, with the French press describing Erdogan as a “two-faced sultan” and a “Turkish Machiavelli”, but also analysts are investigating how Turkey’s relations with the EU could develop in case of his defeat.

“An Erdoğan victory would be a Putin victory,” Marc Pierini, a research fellow at the Carnegie Europe Institute and former EU ambassador in Ankara, told Le Monde newspaper, pointing out that the war in Ukraine gave a good idea of ​​the double Erdogan’s game.

“If the Turkish voters succeed in ousting Erdogan from his presidential palace, it will be an important geopolitical turning point,” says Aranca Gonzalez, former Spanish foreign minister and dean of the School of International Affairs in Paris, noting that the economic crisis, the chaotic management of the recent earthquake and the fatigue of a part of the electorate against an increasingly authoritarian power give hope to the opposition coalition.

“If Erdogan loses and accepts defeat, that changes a lot of things,” a French diplomatic source said, according to the newspaper, who believes the EU will adjust its response to the extent of the “democratic renewal” announced by the opposition. However, as noted, no one is considering resuming accession negotiations with the EU. According to the newspaper, the EU could propose modernizing its long-standing customs union with Turkey by extending it to services. “Things will remain difficult. , but the climate will be calmer”, estimates Pierini, referring to foreseeable difficulties in the Syrian issue.

The financial newspaper Les Echos reports for its part that in Brussels and in the European capitals, they are waiting for the results of the Turkish elections in the hope of a victory for the opposition, but also with Menjamin Coutou, a researcher at the Delors Institute estimating that “either the Whether Erdogan retains power or the opposition wins, this will not fundamentally change relations between Turkey and the European Union, at least initially.”

Regarding the accession of Turkey to the EU, the non-promotion of the request during the pre-election period is pointed out, with Kouto noting that “most Turks no longer believe in it”.

“For Europe, Turkey’s accession to the European Union is not officially buried, but it is not on the agenda either. Whoever wins, it is unlikely that we will get out of this ambiguity”, moreover, a diplomatic advisor of a major European capital, who is cited by the newspaper, argues.

“The European Union could consider the possibility of renegotiating the customs union, easing the visa policy for Turks or even Turkey’s inclusion in the Eastern Mediterranean natural gas projects,” estimates the minister of a Scandinavian country, also cited by the newspaper.

However, according to analyst Luigi Scaggieri, “even if the opposition wins on Sunday, Europeans should not expect Turkey to behave as before”, as, as he observes, “the country is richer than it was twenty years ago years and more powerful at the military and diplomatic level”. According to him, “joining the European Union may no longer be so important for Ankara”, while “a successful Turkey outside the European Union is much easier to imagine than before”.

The opinion that the parliamentary and presidential elections of May 14 in Turkey could put an end to twenty years of power of this “two-faced Sultan”, is expressed by Figaro, noting that the West, although they have avoided supporting openly one or the other of the candidates, they hope that Erdogan’s successor will reverse the country’s authoritarian drift.

The newspaper considers the stakes high, posing the following questions: “What would be the geopolitical consequences of a change in Turkey, at a time when a new world order is being formed, in which liberal democracies are confronted with the despotic anti-model, which China and Russia incarnate?

Could the West finally get rid of this two-faced Sultan, this unwieldy ally, who deftly moves between these two worlds, to play a role on the international chessboard that far exceeds his country’s actual weight ?”

Figaro lays the blame on European countries, such as France and Austria, which in the past, as it notes, gave the Turks promises of a European perspective which they knew they could not fulfill.

“Dreaming of himself as a new Mohammed the Conqueror, Erdogan flatters the nationalist fiber of his people and promises to restore their pride, shaking up the old dreams of the empire, the French newspaper underlines, citing then the Turkish president’s policy in Syria, the Iraq, the Eastern Mediterranean, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, where, as he notes, “as a formidable general he lights or starts fires wherever he can to expand Turkey’s influence.” He also criticizes his policy “in Libya, the Mediterranean or Cyprus, to get their hands on hydrocarbons”, his involvement “in the fissures opened by the Russians or the Western allies”, his actions against the interests of NATO, as well as the exploitation of the immigrant.

In an analysis entitled “The Turk Machiavelli”, Figaro finally describes his attitude towards the war in Ukraine, noting that he managed to use his position to maintain some legitimacy with the West at all costs, convincing them that his strategic value he was overcoming his betrayals. Westerners, the French newspaper concludes, reckon that all this is better than formalizing the final divorce with Turkey and throwing it into the arms of Russia and China, but they clearly hope that the election result will signal the departure of Sultanou and will offer them a more accommodating and pro-Western partner.