No, the issue is wider. Everyone has something that can be considered a "fundamentalist value" by someone else who doesn't share it. It just doesn't feel that way when the value is yours.
I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of the word fundamentalism; it's not just about absolutism, but also the authoritarian aspect, i.e. this issue is "back and white" and "i'm going to force you to to adhere to this black and white framework" (for some mechanism of "force"). My point is that it is the combination of "lack and white" and "forced compliance" that is the issue.
So your point "considered a "fundamentalist value" by someone else who doesn't share it" either a) directly contradicts the "No, the issue is wider", or b) you didn't understand what I was saying.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"; your statement is both a) lacking any nuance (any cost vs any benefit), and b) so lacking in nuance (a tautology even) to border on irrelevance and nihilism (a throw away statement that has the intellectual depth of "everything happens for a reason", a true but largely useless comment that, at least on the surface, is used to shut down any debate).
Every country has sociopaths and narcissists too, but this doesn't really further the conversation about authoritarianism vs democracy, unless of course the legislative has a plurality of such or in thrall to such.
your statements are true and obvious but lack any reasoning as to why it is the way it is; and hence are largely useless. just about anyone can tell you that the sky is blue, what is more important is why.
So your point "considered a "fundamentalist value" by someone else who doesn't share it" either a) directly contradicts the "No, the issue is wider", or b) you didn't understand what I was saying.