{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026515151515151516, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.179347826086956, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How exceptional are Islamists? Comparing support for Hezbollah and the Lebanese Forces

Islamist movements have advanced in various contemporary forms for several decades, but there is little scholarly consensus in explaining the phenomenal rise of these movements. At least four principal competing scholarly schools of thought provide theoretical interpretations: post-nationalism (globalism and weakened nation-states), comparative institutionalism, neo-Marxism (or classbased explanations) and Islamic exceptionalism in multiple forms. Postnationalist views assert that spreading globalization and the weakening of the nation-state in recent decades have undermined nationalism. The combination of these factors provides the impetus for communal groups, such as Islamists, to fall back on primordial political identifications (ethnic, religious, sectarian, racial, tribal, etc.) and, at the same time, to transcend a country’s borders. The comparative institutionalist argument grounds the growth of Islamist movements in contemporary conditions (often tied to globalization) that place unaccommodating political institutions in the path of ethnic and religious aspirations. In contrast, class analysis uses social and economic concepts to explain Islamic populism in terms of class mobilization and social conflict.