Para Português clique aqui
In democratic countries, a high number of individuals become very engaged in politics/economics in election times. They often see hope, a path for change, or improvement. Empirical evidence, however, strongly suggests that hope is much smaller than people think.
Sustainable economic growth is highly correlated with domestic institutions (e.g. Acemoglu et al, 2001; Acemoglu et al, 2005), which are almost always changed every couple of centuries through external shocks, e.g. wars (Gunitsky, 2014). Overall, Latin American countries have been poor for the last 500 years. Southern US has been poorer than the north for more than 300 years (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2008). Eastern Europe has been poorer than in western Europe for 600+ years. People are not stupid in these less developed places since once they migrate they do as well as natives if not better (e.g. Chiswick, 1978). It is also not that people are not voting well. Hundred of elections have happened throughout multiple generations and nothing fundamental really change. Sometimes, countries break this path but that's almost always due to external factors. The Koreans, for example, were pretty similar before the War. After the separation between South and North Korea, their domestic institutions diverged as well as their development path (Acemoglu, 2001). The same happened in Taiwan after the Chinese Revolution. Singapore became independent after basically being kick out of Malaysia. None of these states became rich due to "smart" electoral choices. A few countries managed to change the class structure with revolution, but those were probably only a handful in the last 5000 years (Skocpol, 1979). Therefore, I also do not recommend trying a revolution. Empirical evidence says that it is probably not going to work either. Ask some Iranians how they are doing after the Iranian Revolution or some Egyptian if they are rich after the Arab Spring if you have questions.
Of course, people are getting richer but that is because capitalism is a pretty remarkable system. By making you better off you tend to make others better involuntarily. By expanding your company to get richer, e.g., you are giving more jobs to other people, making them better off also, i.e. the invisible hand of Adam Smith. But capitalism does not change institutions. Inequality is not something that capitalism changes fundamentally (e.g. Scheidel, 2017). Multiple studies managed to trace back wealth in Italy using last names and they suggest that families who were rich in 1427 (i.e. 600 years ago) are still rich today (Barone and Mocetti, 2016).
Thus, we can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that Latin Americans will always be poorer than the US and Western Europe, the US will always be an unequal society, and Eastern Europe will always be poorer than western Europe, until some major external shock happens. Elections will not change that. If institutional issues bother you, data strongly suggest that you should move to another country. No, your country is extremely unlikely to fix itself. There is virtually no hope from the beginning.