Parallels and Contrasts: Examining Support for SAF in Sudan and Assad in Syria

The comparison between supporters of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in Sudan and those who supported Bashar al-Assad in Syria has some parallels but also important differences. Both situations involve complex conflicts driven by a mix of local, regional, and international factors, and the motivations of supporters in each case vary significantly.

Similarities:

1. State vs. Insurgent Dynamics:

Supporters of both SAF and Assad often frame their stance as supporting the legitimate government or state apparatus against what they perceive as insurgents, rebels, or illegitimate actors (RSF in Sudan and various rebel groups in Syria).

2. Desire for Stability:

Many supporters in both cases prioritise stability over political reforms or revolutionary change. They may fear that the fall of the state would lead to prolonged chaos, as seen in post-Gaddafi Libya or Iraq after the US invasion.

3. Regional and International Alliances:

Both SAF and Assad regimes have relied on international allies to sustain their positions. SAF is supported by regional powers like Egypt and sometimes Saudi Arabia, while Assad had backing from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. Supporters often align with these international alliances as a justification for their stance.

4. Anti-Western Narratives:

In both cases, supporters often highlight the role of perceived Western interference, portraying the opposition as tools of foreign powers seeking to destabilise the region.

Differences:

1. Nature of the Conflicts:

The Syrian Civil War is rooted in a broader Arab Spring uprising against authoritarian rule, which Assad responded to with extreme violence. The Sudan conflict is primarily a power struggle between two military factions (SAF and RSF) following a coup and the collapse of a fragile democratic transition.

2. Support Base Composition:

Assad’s supporters include a significant sectarian element, particularly from the Alawite community, alongside other minorities and secular groups who fear Islamist dominance. SAF’s support base is more rooted in traditional military loyalists and those opposed to the RSF’s rise to power.

3. Humanitarian Perceptions:

Assad’s regime has been widely accused of atrocities, including chemical weapons use, which alienated much of the international community. SAF’s actions, while also involving violence against civilians, have not reached the same global notoriety (though this could change as the conflict evolves).

4. Framing of the Opponent:

In Syria, Assad’s regime portrayed opposition groups as a mix of Islamists and foreign-backed terrorists. In Sudan, SAF frames the RSF as a rogue militia attempting to seize power illegally.

While both groups’ supporters may share some ideological or pragmatic rationales, the contexts and details of the conflicts differ significantly. SAF supporters are primarily backing a military institution in a domestic power struggle, while Assad’s supporters were defending an entrenched authoritarian regime against a revolutionary uprising. Both stances reflect fears of instability but are shaped by distinct local, regional, and historical circumstances.