I think the answer is no. There are some Venice commission reports on term limits (one on presidential and one on other limits, including legislature), which don't mention anything like you ask about. Most countries don't even limit the re-election of MPs, by the way, although some do.
Furthermore, it's not easy to see how one can make such a term-limit mechanism effective at party levels, given that parties can be renamed or actually re-formed with largely the same people and ideology. There are more experiences with banning parties partied altogether, only to have them come back in a slightly different form, but with substantially the same ideology. Turkey's AKP predecessor, the Virtue Party is a good example of this difficulty; the Virtue Party was banned, and it technically split in two parties after that, although one wing was rather insignificant. According to one account the AKP actually went through five "incarnations".
All previous Islamist parties in Turkey had been shut down by either military intervention or rulings by the constitutional court: The National Order Party, founded in 1970, was banned by the Constitutional Court in 1971. The National Salvation Party, founded in 1972, was outlawed after the 1980 military coup. The Welfare Party, founded in 1983, was banned by the Constitutional Court in 1998. The Virtue Party, founded in 1997, was banned in 2001.
The AKP formally rejects being called a Muslim or Islamic, instead calling their ideology “conservative democracy”. So some similar level of re-labeling can probably be envisaged if a party was banned from from holding power due to party-level term limits.
Probably a "soft" version of what you're proposing is proportional representation, which "dilutes" the majority that a dominating party would have in a first past the post system.