Via Across the Bay, I see that the always interesting and indispensable Tony Badran has listed a quote from an essay by the renowned Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis from 1977:
The seating arrangements of the first French National Assembly after the Revolution do not express a law of nature, and the practice of classifying political ideas, interests and groups as right or left obscures more than it illuminates even in the Western world where it originated. As applied to other societies, shaped by different experiences, guided by different traditions, moved by different aspirations, such imported labels can only disguise and mislead.
While thankfully no Western commentators have applied right/left labels to the newly-formed political parties in Afghanistan or Iraq, I have long found it extremely frustrating to see Western political terms and labels used to describe what are distinctly non-Western political movements such as Khomeinism, Pakistan's MMA, or the more recent emergence of the Abadgaran movement inside Iran. As Lewis notes, the descriptive labels that are frequently applied to these ideologies do more to obscure what they really believe than it does to provide a useful parallel.
For instance, the Abadgaran movement is frequently described, not only in popular media but also in political science journals, as being Iran's neoconservative movement, with some analysts even going as far as trying to draw a clear parallel between the Abadgaran adherents and their American neoconservative counterparts. Our resident online expert Juan Cole, for instance, could only find a way to explain to his readers just how bad Mahmood Ahmadinejad was for Iran was to compare him to George Bush, a comparison that either reeks of absurd moral equivalency or points to a complete failure to accurately understand the nature of foreign political ideologies.
And as long as listing descriptions that do more to obscure and mislead than to explain to readers, let me just toss out a couple other terms:
- Totalitarianism - Is it me or is this more or just catch-all to describe as many nasty systems of governance as possible? Most adherents of the two systems of government that are usually classified as totalitarian (fascism and communism) will usually describe themselves as such, but I have never heard of anyone describing themselves or their political ideology as totalitarian.
- Islamofascism - I try to refrain from using this as much as possible because as attractive as it is in terms of description, it really has no meaning and is probably at least somewhat misleading when you look at all the influence that Marxist ideologies like Leninism and Trotskyism have on men like Sayyid Qutb. If I have to use an ideology to describe what our Muslim enemies adhere to, I use refer Khomeinism or Salafism, since those describe actual ideologies.
- Islamism/Islamic fundamentalism - Anybody care to explain to me what exactly this is supposed to encompass? Near as I can tell, it's so broad-based that it covers everyone from Osama bin Laden to the Turkish AKP, which leads me to some question of how exactly you're supposed to define it to begin with. The term Islamic fundamentalism, as I understand it, comes about when sociologists tried to compare Islamic revivalism to Christian revivalism, which strikes me as being about as much of a categorical mistake as you can possibly make given the vast gulfs in terms of culture and theology between the two different religions.
Just wanted to get all of that off my chest.
Good post, Dan. This is something that's been nagging me for a while too. It's a natural thing for people to try to understand things that are new and strange to them in terms that are familiar to them, but if you don't have the necessary background information that kind of analogy-mapping can be clumsy at best and very misleading at worst.
"Islamofascism" always struck me as a stupid word (Niall Ferguson's "Islamo-Bolshevist" term is more accurate, but still doesn't seem right). I would say, however, that "totalitarian" can be fairly simply defined -- any political belief which states that the government should have, in principle, unlimited control over the lives of the people can be accurately classed as totalitarian. It seems to me that some types of political Islamism could fairly be grouped under this heading.
Have you read Paul Berman's "Liberalism and Terror"? He made, I thought, a strong case for the explanatory value of the term Islamofascism - he gave a fairly erudite, if brief, description of the roots of western fascism, and of the connections to it on the parts of Qutbism AND Baathism, and Khomeinism. Of course all these ideologies had an anti-imperialist spin - but then so did Strasser's "left" Nazism in the '20s. I suppose the other "left" elements are the populism of Khomeini, and the statism of the Baathists - but without being some of kind of neo-Hayekian who equates Social Democray with Fascism, its certainly true that European fascism incorporated populist as well as statist elements from time to time. Yes its true "right" doesnt apply precisely to the 3 named movements in the islamic world, but then it doesnt apply all that precisely to European fascism either.
re totalitarian = well of course they dont call themselves totalitarian - heretics dont call themselves heretics, do they? The ruling classes dont call themselves that, do they? Even terrorists dont usually call themselves terrorists.
The term was invented by Hannah Arendt to distinguish a certain kind of regime, not only a nondemocratic one, but one distinct from the old authoriatarian regimes of Europe. The old regimes wanted apolitical subjects - and thus implicitly respected some degree of private life (with exceptions) Totalitarianism required a POSITIVE commitment to the regime, and a politicized people - its not enough to go along, you have to cheer - your mind and inner being are thus (at least in theory) subject to the governments control. I dont do justice to Ms Arendt, but her essay makes the case that totalitariansim is a novum with its own charecteristics, charecteristics shared by both left and right versions. Jeanne Kirkpatrick took this distinction and made a further observations - authoritarian regimes are easier to dislodge than totalitarian ones (this was before 1989) , and so its particularly important to stop the thread of totalitarian ones - even if this means supporting authoritarian ones.
While there obviously problems with this lining of thinking, as with ALL abstraction in political science, there is potentially much that is fruitful in using this distinction.
as to fundamentalists - fundamentalists tend to look to the pure original truth of a religion - the literal meaning of the text, before it was corrupted by A. The evil Papists, with their corrupt cannon law traditions B. the liberal churches, with their compromise with Darwin C. Generations of itjihad, attempting to establish compromises with the world and with customs not recognized in the Koran and Hadiths.
It is particulalry apt in comparing several strains to Sunni Islam to the Sufist and other muslim traditions that move far from a literal view of the early muslim prooftexts.
I find it particularly illustrative that individuals coming from a fundamentalist Protestant perspective are particularly susceptible to the notion that the Salafist view of Islam is the correct one, and that a literal reading of the Koran always trumps centuries of muslim history and tradition in determining what is "authentic" Islam.
I am not sure that this applies all that well to Shia Islam, which is indeed problematic as the term first became widespread in the west wrt Iran.
Matt McIntosh:
Oh, I certainly understand what totalitarian means, but it just seems to me to kind of be a catch-all for nasty systems of government. For instance, advocates of human rights argue that societies should adhere to a certain set of rules with respect to individuals and change their systems to conform with them if they don't. Are they totalitarian? I don't think so, but is that simply due to the fact that they don't seek to impose their beliefs through force? This is one of the issues I have with the term.
liberalhawk:
Haven't read Berman, though it certainly sounds interesting.
Recall, Khomeini was originally in cahoots with the Iranian communists (the Mujahideen-e-Khalq) until after he was entrenched in power, so he doesn't seem to have had the traditional fascist animosity towards them - he certainly agreed when it came to the need to restructuring Persian society along pseudo-classless lines. Similarly, Saddam and Baathists in general strike me as having copied the ultra-nationalist appearances of fascism as well as the brownshirt elements (the Saddam Fedayeen seem to have filled the same role as the squadristi or the SS) while adhering to the communist model when it came to the day-to-day operation of the state and the Cult of the Leader.
Agreed on the "left" elements of Nazism, which is one of the reasons why I have problems of classifying it as right-wing (or the types of communism popular in Latin America as left wing, for instance - the school of Liberation Theology strikes me as having been every bit as theocratic as any form of Islamism, for instance) to begin with.
re totalitarian = well of course they dont call themselves totalitarian - heretics dont call themselves heretics, do they? The ruling classes dont call themselves that, do they? Even terrorists dont usually call themselves terrorists.
Good point and thanks for the primer on the history of the term. It actually strikes me that totalitarian societies, especially in their perfect forms like North Korea or Albania or Romania during the Cold War are even more fragile than authoritarian ones since they're more likely engender resistance even though they're more difficult to dislodge because the moment that even the slightest thing falls apart the whole society is in danger of collapse.
On rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world, I'll agree that Salafists and Wahhabis have a much more literal interpretation of their religion than do the Sufis. The trend towards the legitimization of political violence by private individuals (as opposed to states), which is, in all honesty, one of the many reasons why we're so concerned about it strikes me as being completely different from the development of the Protestant model of fundamentalism, which is a pretty major difference in my book.
I find it particularly illustrative that individuals coming from a fundamentalist Protestant perspective are particularly susceptible to the notion that the Salafist view of Islam is the correct one, and that a literal reading of the Koran always trumps centuries of muslim history and tradition in determining what is "authentic" Islam.
I've meant to do a post on just that at some point, but I think that a lot of that also has to do with the general issue of public ignorance to who the Bad Guys are. In the absence of any kind of coherent explanation for similarity in terms of both ideology and brutality practiced by various insurgencies across the Islamic world, it becomes extremely easy to blame the religion as a whole rather than any specific adherents. I also think that the Burkean view of al-Qaeda (which, as you know, I disagree with) makes it extremely easy to go from the root cause of all this stuff being an amorphous ideology to the root cause of it being Islam itself.
Video: Charlie Company In Action
http://bareknucklepolitics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137
I think Bernard Lewis was the first person I read that used the phrase islamism. And he appeared to do so more out of dislike of the phrase "fundamentalist" and its protestant implications than a preference for the term. I can't find the book supporting this. I do find that he used the term "pan-islamism" in Islam and the West, which suggests a reason for the terminology. This places religious identity and idealogy as an alternative to "pan-arabism."
But I also recall Lewis distancing himself from the term "islamism" in a lecture on C-SPAN last year. He seemed to believe that the term was being used to develop a separate political identity for islam, whereas the separation of God and State is not an Islamic concept that would be supported by moderates or radicals.
I think radical Islam is a good term to lump together jihadist and religous despots. Unfortunately, radicalism will always be kewl in some corners.
It goes even further back than that IMHO. Tracing back movements in Islamic thought/ideology to the early Twentieth Century is IMHO self-defeating. Particularly when I would argue, as Lewis has, that the true breaking point was the 12th Century debate between the Rationalists like Averoes, who wished to use logical reasoning and texts from everyone to Plato and Aristotle to gain a better understanding of the Koran and "God's message" (call them syncretists if you must) and the traditionalists such as al-Ghazali who won the day by citing traditional interpretation by the learned men of centuries past.
Look at the regime in Iran and Khomeni before them. How different are they from the Persian Aristocracy/Priesthood that ran the Empire from Cyrus to Islam? There's a strong overlay of Islam over everything of course but the Manichean impulses and the priestly caste which inherits is still there, just in altered Islamic form.
Only in Iraq and Egypt are the old forms of Great Kings and Pharaohs gone. Lebanon may not have the Phoenicians but they sure have Levantine traders.
It's really amazing how much has been carried over in terms of styles and types of governance and organization in these places.
While I have been guilty of using Islamofacism in my own blog, I agree with Dan Darling's sentiment. No words seem descriptive enough - and indeed, I only used Islamofacism in rotation with other terms I feel are equally insufficent "Islamic Fundamentials", "Muslim Extremist" etc.
In not being able to find any suitable term, I've decided just to rotate their use in StrategyUnit.
The adversaries can define us very well: "Zionist", "Decadent West", "Infidels" and so forth. But who the heck are they?
So what say you folks? Who are these guys? Yes Dan, youre right - its better to narrow it down to Salafist etc, when you can make that distinction but a lot of times you cant.
And in any case, a catch-all phrase is needed. I thought of "Global Guerillas under an Islamist Mandate" - but that's probably not too accurate or sexy sounding.
If this "Long War" is partly fought in the media and in the ideas - we need a better label.
Dan:
For a good overview of fundamentalism, and how I believe it is applicable to the current discussion, check out the great pre-GWOT book, "A History Of God" by Karen Armstrong. The former British nun gives a great overview of the three main religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) and gives a nice compare and contrast between the fundamentalists of each.
Liberalhawk,
Actually, Mr. Darling has it closer to the truth on fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism is specifically a movement in the American church during the 1800s, and is no longer practiced. According to my theology classes, fundamentalism affirmed five fundamanetal doctrines about the nature of Christ that were deemed essential to the faith. While this was a reaction to the rise of the humanist-influenced liberal and neo-orthodox theologies of the 1800s, it in no way assumed that the text was corrupted by liberal and neo-orthodox theologians. Specificaly, it was a reaction against the growing trend at that time to minimize or eliminate the importance of Christ and the ressurrection in exchange for an overemphasis, in doctrinal terms, on social activism. (Granted, the American churches swung to the other extreme on social justice issues...)
Somehow, I doubt that the various Islamic movements (whether civilizational or religious) could be defined by a term that denotes a uniquely American Christian movement long since passsed.
As I remember, Armstrong defines fundamentalism as a belief in the literal word of truth, whatever your holy book may be. So the fundamentalist Jews believe in a real coming back to the holy land, fundamentalist Muslims believe in a literal jihad, and fundamentalist Christians believe in television shows.
Just kidding. As you note, there was an "official" fundamentalist sect in the mid 1800s, but this does not refer to that. Remembering growing up in the mid-south in the 1970s and 80s, I can recall several churches who considered themselves "fundamentalists" -- the term obviously has more than one meaning. In my opinion, Armstrong does a good job of pulling out the commonalities amongst the three.
Dan,
I prefer "Khomeniist Islamofascists," Salafist Islamofasicts," etc.
This has the benefit of correctly attributing both the actual ideological thought-complexes in question, and their common moral/practical nature. With this combination, it is possible to spot the key commonalities between, say, Ba'athism and Salafist jihadism, as well as the key differences. Both are required.
I prefer "jihadi/jihadist" to "Islamic fundamentalist," for the same reason that I prefer "terrorist" to the spectacularly misleading and inadequate "militant".
As for totalitarianism, it does indeed have a very specific meaning re: leaving no private space outside the theoretical ambit of politics, as opposed to authoritarian systems in which you obey the ruler and nobody cares much beyond that. The differences between the two, and their practical implications re: reform, are profound.
I personally prefer the term politicist, but it won't be adopted any time soon. The theoretical contributions of Western totalitarian systems to both Pan-Arabist Islamofascism and the Qtubite variety, and the politicist nature of many Islamofascist regimes, make the term useful in contemporary conversation.
Dan
1. Re Berman. You really should read him - hes a bit outdated, he wroted before Op Iraqi Freedom (which he supported) You wont agree with everything he writes - hes a real life social democrat (think a sober Hitchens, without the Mother Teresa obsession) whos very strong on the WOT, very well read in both western intellectual history, and the history of the 20thc Islamic movements. Given your areas of expertise, I think this is essential reading.
2. Re Khomeinist coalitions. Well, the reality of politics is that odd coalitions form, often around common enemies. I dont know if i should even mention the Nazi-Soviet pact in this context - the Khomeini-Tudeh pact is much less odd. Fascists (ideologically) arent defenders of a class society per se - rather they oppose the Marxist attempt to define society in terms of classes, and a class struggle that divides the nation or race (or ummah) which should be united. They seek to unite all classes in the core unit against outsiders, and to combine some elements of modernity with a return to premodern modes of social existence. Franco, for ex, didnt oppose traditional Catholic notions of social justice, did he? (of course some would deny Franco was actually a fascist - Berman asserts he was, and hangs much of his justification for the term Islamofascism on parallels with Francoism) Fascists oppose those who threaten this primeval unity, and primeval existence. In Europe in the 20s and 30s Communism seemed like the most assertive modernist ideology. In 1979 clearly western secularism/democracy/capitalism was as strong as communism, and in the immediate circumstances of revolutionary Iran, was more threatening.
On the frailty of totalitarianism. Yes, like I said, Kirkpatrick looks less prescient after 1989 and 1991. Or perhaps the terms are being used incorrectly. When Hannah Arendt wrote, the USSR was ruled by Stalin. Brezhnevism represented a sort of soft totalitarianism - one with a more omnipresent state than in a right wing authoritarianism, but less insistent on complete control of thought than "real" totalitarianism.
re islamist vs fundamentalist vs jihadi
Islamist, IIUC, is anyone who wants an Islamic state, a state based on Sharia. In theory one need not be a fundamentalist in the Salafi sense to want a Sharia based state. Others use fundamentalist the way I use Islamist. My usage implies that one can define a textual literalist tradition in Islam that is broader than Salafism.
It also creates confusion in terms of the definition of a Sharia state. Most "secular" moslem states adhere to muslim family law. A secular state like Israel has religious family law - Halacha for the Jews, and Sharia for the muslims. I think India is similar. In the west we forget how much of family law is rooted in Christian views of marriage to this day, and until recently, Christian views of divorce, etc. Islamist, to have any real meaning must indicate Sharia beyond the realm of family law, narrowly defined.
Fundamentalist vs Jihadi - I tend to use Jihadi for those who actively see an ongoing, violent offensive jihad happening in current times. IIUC there are wahabi elements in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere?) who are textually literalist, socially "backward", and who certainly share traditional interpretations of the word Jihad, but who dont support terrorist combat against the infidel world in general (though they may see specific conflicts EG Israel, Kashmir, in terms of Jihad - a Jihad they leave to others)
"I've meant to do a post on just that at some point, but I think that a lot of that also has to do with the general issue of public ignorance to who the Bad Guys are. In the absence of any kind of coherent explanation for similarity in terms of both ideology and brutality practiced by various insurgencies across the Islamic world, it becomes extremely easy to blame the religion as a whole rather than any specific adherents"
Im going based on arguments at Rantburg and elsewhere. You try to tell someone that a literal reading of a text is NOT necessarily the "authentic" one in a religion, and they dont have any idea what youre talking about. I cant imagine a traditional Jew or Roman Catholic not getting that distinction.
I myself prefer "Islamic supremacism" as a general descriptor of our enemy's ideology, for three reasons:
1) It neatly captures the essence of the ideology: that Islam, as both a religion for the individual and a blueprint for civilization, is superior to any other religion or civilizational model that ever existed or ever will exist.
2) While "Islamist" will still do in a pinch, it strikes me as pretty antiseptic. It is also too easy for the PC left to conflate with "Muslim," as is their wont. "Islamic supremacism," being a more specific term, is not so easily confused with Islam as a whole.
3) Last but not least: Unlike "Islamofascism," "Islamic supremacism" does not flirt with Godwin's Law.
Re fundamentalism
While I'm not a fundamentalist, I may have fallen for the conceit suggested by Liberalhawk in #4. Shortly after 9/11 I bought an English translation of the Koran, thinking that I would read it and understand Islam the same way reading the Old Testament gave me an understanding of Judaism. (Perhaps not a complete understanding of Judaism, but a good background in law, history and values) I gave up on the Koran after reading a few suras, browsed the rest of the book and set it aside.
I think my experience illustrates some important distinctions:
My view here is that Christian fundamentalism can be a poor entry way to understanding radical Islam, particularly if the focus is on how canon is interpreted. However, those aspects of eschatological fervor which are pronounced in Christian fundamentalism (but exist in all of the "Three Great Monotheistic Religions") can be useful. To the extent someone becomes obsessed with the destruction of the imperfect in pursuit of an ideal future, religion becomes a tool of despots and criminals. And this evil is not limitted to religion per se, but is what Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were pursuing.
Joe:
I have no problem with using the term jihadi since that's how, well, jihadis, describe themselves and it's a useful identifier.
liberalhawk:
1. Agreed, I'll try to take a look at it when I get the chance.
2. I agree that politics makes wierd bedfellows and think that it might be helpful to distinguish between "White Fascists" (clerical fascists) and "Black Fascists" (revolutionary fascists). As for Franco, I've seen the argument made that he was more of a classical Catholic authoritarian than he was a fascist - he certainly made no effort to convert his Muslim subjects in North Africa to Catholicism despite his strong support for the Church (which I think has done more to hurt Catholicism in Spain today than anything else, a point we can discuss some other time), for instance. I think the Romanian Iron Guard might be a better an analogy as far as clerical fascism is concerned, since it came out of an Eastern Orthodox movement but incorporated a lot more Nazi tendencies after it achieved real power together with Ion Antonescu in 1940.
On Islamist/fundamentalist/jihadi, I agree that not all textual literalists in Islam are Salafists, just as all of them aren't violent or supporters of violence either. There are Wahhabi elements in Saudi Arabia that don't support terrorism or jihad except perhaps rhetorically, but they don't seem to be in control of much of the established religious authorities or the NGO networks.
Im going based on arguments at Rantburg and elsewhere. You try to tell someone that a literal reading of a text is NOT necessarily the "authentic" one in a religion, and they dont have any idea what youre talking about. I cant imagine a traditional Jew or Roman Catholic not getting that distinction.
Oh definitely and there are also internal disagreements with just about any religion I've seen as to what the "authentic" meaning of a given text is.
I hate labels, they are oversimplifications, and many criminals hide themselves behind them or change them at will.
For instance (in the issue of oversimplifications):
As for Franco, I've seen the argument made that he was more of a classical Catholic authoritarian than he was a fascist
Classical Catholic? Fascist? Neither of them! Of course he was authoritarian, he was a general, a very good one, the second youngest general in European armies after Napoleon- and he was beyond politics.
he certainly made no effort to convert his Muslim subjects in North Africa to Catholicism despite his strong support for the Church
When a Spaniard did try to convert the Muslims of Northern Africa? The Spanish interest in that place has been limited to avoid its use as a ground to attack our country. No mesianic task there.
Some writers have speculated on what would have happened if Spain had sent its armies there and not to Germany and Holland to fight futile wars for the Emperor. A safer Europe?
Under Franco rule Northern Africa Protectorate enjoyed a freedom of religion (also for Jews) unknown in the Spanish mainland. And when European tourists began to use provocative clothes on the Spanish beaches during the sixties Franco allowed it, focusing on Economics and leaving aside the complains of the Church (BTW, with great rejoice of his countrymen).
He used the Catholic Church, as it did with the Falange (Fascist) party, as a tool, in this case, to break the isolation of his country. Franco was neither pro-german nor pro-english. He was simply a general, a general that won four wars, and whose tactics (and tools employed) changed as the situation evolved. Rather practical than dogmatic, so trying to stick a dogmatic label on such a person is useless.
And monopolies have always favoured stagnation, even for religions.
Liberalhawk's distinctions between Islamists, fundamentalists, and jihadis seems spot-on to me (#15), and is worth internalizing.
In a rather similar vein, there are activists, militants, and terrorists.
Obviously, language that deliberately confuses these 3 things is going to be VERY unhelpful as a guide to sensible action. Which, in the case of the media's use of "militant" to denote "terrorist," is precisely the point. But their deliberate confusion has costs. You don't want folks hauling your organic gardener friend off to the klink because "all activists/ militants/ terrorists look alike to us", and you don't want to adopt a "live and let live" policy with an ELFer as he's apt not to return the favour.
Likewise, language that confuses Islamists, fundamentalists, and jihadis is going to be very unhelpful to us in this war.
Now, Islamic factional doctrines about the permissibility of lying about such things, Shari'a law as traditionally formulated, and some of the prescribed conduct patterns within fundamentalist Islam are cause for legitimate concern and criticism. They may also foster an attitude whereby standard disavowals of violence et. al. may not be believed, and that's just a consequence of behaviour. If it happens, it's a problem for the ummah to address, not our problem.
Joshua's "Islamic supremacism" (#17) is a good term that gets at the root of some of that fuzziness. It's possible for an Islamic fundamentalist to be relatively peaceful, but it may also be a direct incitement to violence. "Islamic supremacism" (or "Salafist supremacism" - ask a Pakistani Shi'ite), on other hand, may not be terrorist per se but will always and intrinsically be hostile and threatening. That term neatly separates out the dangerous Islamists and fundamentalists from their cohort, in ways that go beyond just jihadist violence.
So,we have:
One of the things these terms do, for instance, is draw the key lines and let people point out when those lines are crossed. Confuse the words, and we lose that. which means we not only reduce our ability to criticize effectively and designate moral limits, we also reduce our ability to test who our enemies really are if we're not sure.
Not good.
J Aguilar, meanwhile, describes the essence of authoritarianism (#20). Whether or not Franco fits this essentially non-ideological pattern or not may be subject to discussion - but we can look closer to home in Latin America's caudillo leadership history to see the same idea re-expressed. I stress again the critical difference between this and politicism/ totalitarianism, though both suck if you're a subject who disagrees.
The fact that totalitarianism/politicism is intrinsically agressive and hostile beyond its borders, whereas an authoritarian state is not intrinsically so, may be where Dan is trying to go with his distinction between clerical and revolutionary fascists. There is enough history of revolutionary and even politicist clerical authoritarianism out there, however, to cast doubt on that term as an effective differentiator from the revolutionary variety.
"Authoritarian" and Totalitarian" have the benefit of wide understanding from long use and flexibility across ideologies, and have worked very well to get at this distinction. Why not just use them?
Left & Right are just simplistic lables that attempt to give a window into an n-tuple viewpoint region in a m-tuple issue space. Sort of Venn diagrams across the dimensions. Its ties into the reason all political parties are collations.
A political party may have M issues it has offical positions on. People who identify with the party may have 1 through M issues in common with it plus 0 through K issues not in addressed by the party. That's these issues are then mapped into a single dimensional Left Right line is far too crude a generalization. However, it does fit well with 20 second TV ads.
I agree that it's important to use well-defined temrs when talking abvout politics. (Some people deliberatly use ill-defined terms, switch definitionbs in mid usage, and other sleight-of-hand designed to mislead).
"Left" and "right" are used to mean a number of things. But in all countries there is a variation in now much wealth people have, and there are interests that rich people have in common, and different interests that poor people have in common. So it seems reasonable to label parties that are mostly concerned with the interests of rich people (and supported by those people, etc) "rightist" and those concerned mostly with the interests of poor people "leftist".
"Islamism" also has a meaning, to my mind, although it's such a broad one as to not be very useful: any political philosophy largely based on Islam.
I agree that "Islamofascism" isn'tr a particularly sensible word, and terms like "salafism" are much more precise.
"Totalitarian" has a reasonably exact emaning: a society where the government controls (or attempts to control) every aspect of how one thinks. By this standard, North Korea is a totalitarian society whereas (for example) China and Saudi Arabia are not.
Jihadist is the right word but you cannot use it because the Jihadist supporters have sanitized its meaning.