Economic inequality has been a major topic of discussion in academic circles, political circles and the popular press in recent years. Kulkarni and Matin-Bekat (2009) suggest that, as inequality applied to income and economic inequality, it is a very complex issue; economists, sociologists, and political scientists are just some of those who worry about economic inequality. What is talked about and above all the biggest concern is the ever-growing gap between rich and poor which has the potential to cause serious political consequences in many countries around the world. Among these consequences are how economic inequality endangers democratic governments and how, as economic inequality increases, democratic support declines in the population. This article will discuss three main political consequences associated with economic inequality: negative political consequences, public dissatisfaction with the democratic process, and redistributive preferences, and at the same time, this article will incorporate empirical evidence in comparing economic inequality in two countries: Brazil and South Africa . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Economic equality can be described as differences in economic distribution among a particular population in terms of wealth, pay, and income. Basically the rich get richer and richer, while the impoverished continue to get poorer and poorer. A person's economic position in society can be determined by a wide range of factors including; education level, gender, ethnic origin, existing economic policies or physical disability. The unequal distribution of wealth and income increases the gap between rich and poor, leading to income inequality between individuals and families. Political economy theory suggests that democracy is a mechanism for redistributing resources from economic elites to poor citizens and that citizens will therefore desire democracy more strongly in a country with greater economic inequality. However, as economic inequality increases, democratic support declines. Dahl states that democracy's failure to address persistent economic inequalities leads to "resentments and frustrations that weaken loyalty to the regime." As cited in Krieckhaus (2013), Karl argues that economic inequality has vitiated popular control over Latin American government; “Economic elites have bent the laws to their bidding, weakened the courts, violated rights, corrupted politicians, and trampled on constitutions and contracts.” High inequality has also led the masses to withdraw their support for democratic governance in Brazil. In evidence, Brazil has had a long period of socialist governments, from the 1980s to the present day. Cordova and Seligson (2010) provide quantitative evidence that income inequality reduces democratic support in Latin America and the Caribbean. Krieckhaus (2013) states that citizens living in countries with higher national economic inequality will profess less support for democracy than citizens living in countries with lower national economic inequality. Economic inequality has led to political polarization within political parties. Political polarization occurs when there are ideological differences between the mass public, political parties, and politicians that lead to political conflict. It also means the division of a nation, with two completely different perspectives politically speakingcause continuous tensions among the population. For example, Souza and Medeiros (2015) argue that low-income workers may vote homogeneously as a form of protest against existing economic inequalities. Economic inequality poses a threat to democratic success and stability in Brazil and South Africa. Citizens must support democracy for it to thrive, and this cannot happen if there is an unequal distribution of economic opportunities and resources. The gap between winners and losers must be as small as possible for citizens to support democracy. Furthermore, economic inequality encourages redistributive preferences among citizens. The poor tend to have greater support for redistribution than the rich. As Giliomee suggests, both Brazil and South Africa made progress toward democracy in the form of compromises between contending elites unable to unilaterally impose their will. In two countries, the new structures called “new democracies” by Weffort, cited in Giliomee, involve the fusion of democratic institutions with those of a recent authoritarian past. The key question on both continents is whether actors in such “hybrid situations” will view these compromises with the past as a potential obstacle to democracy or as a potential strength. Finally, socioeconomic inequalities between the richest 10% and the poorest 50% are more or less at the same level in South Africa and Brazil. The failed attempt to substantially improve severe poverty and reduce inequality seriously endangers democratic consolidation. As cited in Giliomee, Weffort argues that it is not possible to consolidate a political democracy if there is a contradiction between an institutional system based on the political equality of citizens and a society characterized by extreme inequalities or a process of growing social and economic inequality. Brazil and South Africa are still considered some of the most unequal countries in the world in terms of economic inequality. The difference between what the “upper class” earns in these countries is simply absurd compared to what a “lower class” can get for their wages, if they are employed at all. Although both countries have developed some of the most ambitious social policies in the world over the years, this does not appear to be changing. This situation appears to be closely linked to corruption rates in these countries. The plans on paper might be sustainable but in reality they are completely utopian due to poor management of resources and regulations. According to reports from Brazil's Freedom House, individuals do not enjoy equal opportunities and freedom from economic exploitation. Slavery-like working conditions represent a significant problem in rural and increasingly urban areas. A 2012 constitutional amendment allows the government to confiscate all property of landowners who use forced labor. However, under President Temer, the Ministry of Labor and Social Security announced in October 2017 that it would not continue to automatically make public its “dirty list” of employers who subject workers to abusive conditions. The ministry also changed its internal definition of “slave-like conditions” to a more limited set of conditions focused on freedom of mobility. As far as Freedom House reports in South Africa, the levels of inequality in this country are among the highest in the world. Only a small percentage of the population benefits from large state industries and the economy is controlled by a relatively small number of people belonging to the political elite,.