Ambedkar on US and European Right Wing Populism

by Kumar Gaurav

B. R. Ambedkar never witnessed Trump, Brexit, or the rise of right wing parties across Europe, yet his warnings about majoritarian domination read like an analysis of today’s Western politics. His political philosophy emerged from a deep study of how democracies collapse when identity becomes a tool of power. Although he fought the caste hierarchy in India, his framework applies easily to the racial, religious, and cultural tensions shaping the US and Europe. When his ideas are placed next to Trumpism, Brexit, or the growing influence of parties such as the National Rally in France, Alternative for Germany, and Fidesz in Hungary, the patterns become unmistakable.

Ambedkar consistently warned that democracy fails when the majority sees itself not as one political group among many but as the nation itself. In such moments, he argued, the majority begins to believe it has a natural right to rule. This produces what he called the tyranny of the majority, where the numerical power of one community becomes a justification for restricting the rights of others. Trumpism embodies this danger clearly. The “Make America Great Again” campaign framed a nostalgic idea of the country centered around white identity. Immigrants, Muslims, African American activists, journalists, and political opponents were portrayed as threats to the true America. Ambedkar would identify this as a form of majoritarian politics that risks replacing democratic norms with identity driven antagonism.

His idea of constitutional morality also fits neatly into the current American landscape. Ambedkar believed that institutions survive only when political actors restrain themselves voluntarily. He insisted that leaders must respect norms even when those norms are inconvenient. Trump’s repeated attacks on the press, the intelligence community, the judiciary, and even the electoral process contradict those principles. Ambedkar described democracy as a moral order rather than just a method of choosing governments. A democracy where the legitimacy of elections is questioned only when one side loses would, in his view, be drifting away from constitutional morality.

Brexit offers a similar example. The 2016 referendum was heavily influenced by campaigns focused on immigration, security, and cultural difference. Large sections of the public were convinced that migrants from the European Union and refugees from conflict zones were undermining social stability and national identity. Ambedkar would see in this rhetoric the same pattern he warned about in India: the transformation of cultural anxieties into political power by claiming that the majority is under threat. When the Brexit slogan “take back control” was used, it suggested that democratic control had been stolen by outsiders, bureaucrats, or minorities. Ambedkar would argue that this kind of messaging turns democratic debate into a contest of identity rather than a discussion of policy.

Europe’s broader political shifts would strengthen his concerns. Parties such as the National Rally in France, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Sweden Democrats, the Danish People’s Party, and the Brothers of Italy have gained influence using arguments that frame refugees and Muslim communities as demographic or cultural dangers. Several European governments have adopted harsher border policies, expanded detention facilities, and normalized suspicion toward migrants. Ambedkar’s understanding of social hierarchy helps explain this. He believed that discrimination does not survive only through law but through a structure of ideas that ranks communities by their perceived worth. These structures can be racial, religious, or cultural. Western societies, he would argue, often reproduce hierarchies that function the way caste did in India. When groups are consistently portrayed as inferior, threatening, or incompatible, a graded social order emerges even without explicit legal segregation.

Ambedkar’s perspective on minority rights also offers clarity. He insisted that minorities are not a problem for democracy. The real threat comes from the majority’s unwillingness to limit its own power. For him, democracy required not only free elections but a moral commitment to protect those with less power. Policies such as the United States travel ban targeting several Muslim majority countries, the United Kingdom’s attempt to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, and the European Union’s border pushback controversies would trouble him deeply. These actions treat entire populations as security risks rather than individuals deserving legal protection. Ambedkar criticized similar attitudes when they were used to justify caste based prejudice in India. He would read today’s Western policies as modern forms of exclusion rooted in fear, not in democratic principle.

Another troubling trend for Ambedkar would be the weakening of institutions. Several right wing governments in the West have shown impatience with judicial oversight, independent media, and academic autonomy. In Hungary, the government has restricted press freedom and restructured universities. In the United States, political polarization has undermined public trust in the Supreme Court and other institutions. Ambedkar believed that democracy depends on institutions that stand above partisan politics. He designed India’s constitutional system precisely to prevent the concentration of power. When Western leaders dismiss judicial decisions, question the legitimacy of elections, or show hostility toward critical journalism, Ambedkar’s warnings feel entirely relevant.

Ambedkar’s analysis also applies to the cultural dimension of Western populism. Many of these movements claim that national identity is fixed and must be protected from change. Ambedkar argued the opposite. He believed societies evolve through debate, conflict, and reform. A nation that fears diversity becomes rigid, and rigidity leads to authoritarianism. In the United States, debates about immigration, racial justice, and religious freedom often turn into zero sum contests. In Europe, arguments about the compatibility of Islam with “European values” simplify complex social questions into cultural binaries. Ambedkar would reject this framing. For him, democracy thrives when it embraces difference rather than treating it as a threat.

His ideas offer one final insight into the current moment. Ambedkar argued that democracy is always vulnerable to emotional politics. He believed that reason must guide political life, but he acknowledged that fear and resentment are powerful forces. Right wing populism in the West has succeeded largely by channeling economic anxieties, cultural insecurity, and distrust of elites. Ambedkar would not dismiss these concerns, but he would warn that using them to justify exclusion will erode the moral foundation of democracy. The real test of a political system, he believed, is how it treats those who are weakest. By that measure, the rise of anti immigrant sentiment across the West signals a democratic decline rather than a democratic renewal.

Ambedkar did not write for the West, but his concepts travel easily across borders. His framework for understanding domination, identity, and democratic ethics allows us to see the deeper patterns behind Trumpism, Brexit, and Europe’s far right movements. When he warned about majoritarian tyranny, he was describing a universal danger: the moment when a majority stops believing it shares the nation with others and starts believing it owns it. That warning should be taken seriously today.