Lately I have been loosely involved with an academic project entitled 'Wellbeing State Network' (don't ask questions about the title; it got funding!). But connections with democracy led me to think the latter, as a set of political systems, does not depend on equality as an absolute. What it does depend on is inequality, in any form (most obviously wealth or income) being kept within limits defined by the need to prevent X being able to overpower Y. On that criterion, I reckon inequality worldwide is now excessive and must be diminished. How can I justify this?
(a) Simple observation: the degree to which the new brash ultra-rich can interfere in matters like political parties and attract attention doing it; or the way economists and politicians are obviously scared of the rich, or their assets, leaving, to an extent unhealthy for policy making. This is not to deny that some policies disliked by rich people may be stupid or even nasty, but others deserve a say in deciding that.
(b) The long-standing tension between freedom and equality can be eased by recognising both as essential for democracy, but neither as an absolute with no qualifications. Freedom for X naturally means some constraints on Y (protections), while allowing each to pursue their own goals. But the latter will need to be enabled by limiting inequality of outcomes to ensure freedom for both X and Y. That is, inequality being limited so that X does not dominate Y or vice-versa.
So, if democracies want to counter authoritarian challenges (if not, just ask the authoritarians what they want, and do it) they need to offer everyone freedom below the point where others are threatened, and ensure inequalities are also held below that point. That in itself ought to ensure all the 'decolonisation' anyone could wish for.