I think you’re misunderstanding the statement. “The executive of the state”, in this case these directors for the literal executive branch, do not reflect the democratic ideals of the populace and instead reflect and provide service to the capitalist class. Most administrations in neoliberal democracies are more subtle about it though.
The state more broadly and the executive specifically is a reflection of society (with some exceptions); if society does not value freedom (in the true sense, not the polemical sense), you are going to get leaders who oppose democracy.
What does neoliberal have to do with this? If anything, non-liberal administrations are much more likely to service a small group of insiders and generally engage in brutal excesses.
Just another reminder that the executive of the state is a committee for the bourgeoisie.
In most cases the state is a reflection of society at large (examples such occupation governments or North Korea notwithstanding).
I think you’re misunderstanding the statement. “The executive of the state”, in this case these directors for the literal executive branch, do not reflect the democratic ideals of the populace and instead reflect and provide service to the capitalist class. Most administrations in neoliberal democracies are more subtle about it though.
The state more broadly and the executive specifically is a reflection of society (with some exceptions); if society does not value freedom (in the true sense, not the polemical sense), you are going to get leaders who oppose democracy.
What does neoliberal have to do with this? If anything, non-liberal administrations are much more likely to service a small group of insiders and generally engage in brutal excesses.