After serving for 13 years as chairman of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) since its foundation, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan handed over on Aug. 27 his chairmanship and premiership to his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu.

Although presenting the party's congress with multiple candidates before announcing a successor to Erdogan might have been more befitting a democratic selection style, such a scenario was not even up for discussion. Erdogan choreographed the transition from his premiership to the presidency in such a way that the country will only spend one night without a government in place.

"God willing, we will give Davutoglu the mandate to form the government tomorrow [Aug. 28], and the new Cabinet will be announced on Friday [Aug. 29]," Erdogan told a crowd of 40,000 AKP supporters bused in from Turkey’s 81 provinces. People were visibly emotional, and many tears were shed as Erdogan took the podium for his last speech as party chairman and prime minister; he becomes president Aug. 28. “This is not a change in the mission, or in the spirit of our cause or in our ideals. Today, we are only changing the names,” Erdogan said, strongly emphasizing that Davutoglu will be a figure of real stature and power as prime minister. "I would like to especially stress this: Davutoglu is not a caretaker. Everyone should know that."

Both Erdogan and Davutoglu colored their speeches with numerous references to the country’s historic inheritance going back nearly a millennium, and noted that they are the descendants of those who defended Medina, Palestine, Egypt, Syria and Iraq at the cost of their lives. “We are not a movement or a party that has cut its ties with its past, its roots or its spirit,” Erdogan said, stressing that they carry the same spirit of those who founded the republic on Oct. 29, 1923. Still, Erdogan crystallized his critique of the early stages of the republic, arguing that it had gotten off track early on from its core theme of democratization and pluralism. “While the nation would have led the state, the state drew the road map for the nation to follow. The state intervened in everything about the people; it tried to order them, from their clothing to the music they listen to. … They denied all differences.”