Twenty-four hours before the elections in TurkeyBrussels is watching closely, but also from a distance, what will be at stake in the ballot box and whether the voters will side with Kemalism, or whether Tayyip Erdogan he will manage to secure his stay in power by legitimate or illegitimate means.

The EU is calling for an election confrontation “transparent and inclusive”, with the responsible Commission representative Peter Stano noting on the one hand that “Turkey is an important partner for the EU”, but also underlining the need for the process to be conducted based on democratic standards and all parties to respect the rule of law and the will of the citizens.

A country of nearly 85 million, which gained EU candidate status in 1999, is struggling to balance between the democratic West and an increasingly authoritarian bent, with some European diplomats estimating that Tayyip Erdogan’s stay could mean a familiar well-trodden on the one hand, with ups and downs and unpredictable behavior on the other. Others claim that a change and the rise to power of Kemal Kilindaroglu would mark the beginning of a new era away from “authoritarianism”.

Read more: The scenarios of the Turkish elections – “Regulator” the result in the Parliament

The EU does not expect the baton change to be easy. An unstable government formation with a strong opposition on the other hand, would tie the hands of Kilintsaroglou, who – if elected – would be called upon to give tangible signs of his willingness to cooperate with the EU. “The ball is in the court of the Turks”, points out a European source, explaining that “Ankara must realize that not everything is a bargain. If they want a better partnership with the Union, they will have to take action themselves and at the moment that is not happening.”

For his part, Ian Lesser, Vice President of the German Marshall Fund and Executive Director of its branch in Brussels, believes that, if President Erdogan and the AKP lose power, “some things are likely to change in Turkey’s international policy, with implications for Washington and Brussels. The manner matters. The rhetoric coming from Ankara will likely be different and less inflammatory. Professionals will regain their political influence in key areas, including NATO and regional security. A more orthodox management of monetary policy and a more independent central bank will reassure international investors. Some sort of resolution to the controversies over Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400s and Sweden’s pending NATO membership is likely. This will have particular resonance in the US Congress, where criticism of Ankara is particularly strong. Turkey will likely adopt a more multilateral approach to energy development and political dialogue in the Eastern Mediterranean.” On the other hand, the immigration issue remains open and burning, because with needs having shifted after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it remains unknown where and how financial support will be found for Turkey with the results of any aid unknown. The management of the issue of the customs union, but also of visas, is also sailing in uncharted waters with the existing data. Turkey’s partial harmonization with the EU’s trade policy towards third countries creates second thoughts and makes experienced European officials favor the establishment of an operational dispute resolution mechanism, but also the technical expansion of the scope of the customs union agreement.

Whoever wins in Turkey’s duel, the first half of the new government is expected to be difficult due to the country’s economic collapse and inflation that is estimated to reach close to 47% at the end of this year, with many not ruling out that the IMF is again on the doorstep, which could also have an impact on any possible EU-Turkey rapprochement attempt.