Political ideology, religiosity and preferences for government responsibility in Türkiye: Evidence from multiple waves of the World Values Survey

At the heart of every society lies a quiet, persistent question: who is responsible for making sure people can eat, stay warm, and survive hard times? Is it the duty of the state to step in and provide a safety net, or is it the job of each individual to build their own security? This debate is not just about money; it is about how people see the world. Some believe that life's challenges are often the result of larger forces beyond our control, requiring a collective solution. Others feel that success and failure are primarily the result of personal choices, meaning the government should stay out of the way. To understand why people hold these different views, researchers look at two powerful forces that shape human identity: political ideology and religious belief. Political ideology acts like a compass, pointing people toward ideas of equality and shared responsibility or toward ideas of freedom and self-reliance. Religious belief, meanwhile, offers a moral framework that can either emphasize charity and community care or stress personal piety and individual duty. In countries where these forces are strong and often in tension, understanding how they mix to shape opinions on government help is crucial for seeing how a nation thinks about its own future.

In Turkey, a country where secular and religious identities have long been part of the political landscape, a team of researchers set out to map exactly how these beliefs influence what people want from their government. They turned to a massive collection of data gathered over twenty-five years, from 1995 to 2020, involving more than ten thousand people. This data came from a series of global surveys that asked ordinary citizens deep questions about their lives, their values, and their trust in institutions. The researchers wanted to know if a person's political leaning or their level of religious devotion predicted whether they believed the government should ensure everyone is provided for, or if people should take care of themselves. To get a clear picture, they did not just ask if someone was religious; they looked at two different sides of faith. One side measured how important religion was in a person's daily life and identity, while the other measured how often they actually attended religious services. This allowed them to see if simply believing in something was different from actively practicing it.

The results painted a clear picture of the political divide. People who identified with the left side of the political spectrum consistently showed a strong preference for an active government role. They were far more likely to believe that the state should take responsibility for ensuring citizens' well-being. On the other side, those who identified with the right were much more likely to emphasize individual responsibility, preferring that people rely on their own efforts rather than state support. This finding confirmed what many had suspected: political identity is a powerful predictor of economic views. However, the story of religion was far more complicated and changed over time. The researchers found that the relationship between religious practice and government responsibility was not fixed; it shifted depending on the political climate of the era.

In the late 1990s, people who practiced their religion less often tended to be more individualistic, believing that the government should not be responsible for their welfare. But by the 2010s, this pattern had flipped. During the later years of the study, those who attended religious services less frequently began to support a larger role for the government in ensuring everyone was provided for. The researchers suggest this change happened because, in the 2010s, the governing party in Turkey was closely tied to conservative religious values. As a result, people who were less religious may have felt that the current government was not looking out for them, leading them to distinguish between the political party in power and the state as an institution. They began to see the state as a necessary provider that the current leadership might be neglecting. Conversely, people who said religion was not very important in their lives generally held more individualistic views, preferring that individuals take care of themselves rather than relying on the state.

The study also revealed that a person's sense of their own financial standing played a major role. Those who felt they were wealthier were more likely to support the idea that individuals should be responsible for their own livelihoods. In contrast, those who felt they had lower incomes were more likely to demand that the government step in to ensure everyone is provided for. This suggests that economic reality still shapes political desire, but it does so through the lens of personal experience. Over the decades, the data showed a subtle shift in the middle ground. While the extremes of left and right remained distinct, a growing number of people began to settle on a moderate view, suggesting that neither pure individualism nor total state control is the only answer. Instead, many citizens appear to be looking for a balance where both the individual and the government share the burden of responsibility.

Ultimately, this research shows that opinions on government help are not formed in a vacuum. They are the result of a complex mix of political identity, religious practice, and personal economic feeling. The study highlights that as a country's political and social environment changes, so too do the ways people interpret their needs and the role of the state. In a nation as diverse and rapidly changing as Turkey, these findings offer a window into how ordinary people navigate the tension between their values and their economic realities. The work suggests that for policies to be effective and accepted, leaders must understand that different groups are not just asking for different amounts of help, but are operating from fundamentally different worldviews about who is responsible for the well-being of the community.