The security debate over Jacob Zuma is unnecessary. At best, it reminds us of the folly of the tendency to politicise who is entitled to security measures on the taxpayers' account.
Zuma is a former deputy president of the country and therefore is entitled to certain levels of security. Furthermore, it is an established norm that the risk assessment and not popularity, as the Democratic Alliance wants to suggest, determines what kind of security a person will receive from the state.
For even if popularity were the benchmark, the world's graves are full of popular men and women whose popularity could not save them from the assassin's nefarious plan.
Much as we appreciate that this is election season, we should not forget that all other living former heads of state and their deputies are entitled. That means that Zuma, in the same way that FW de Klerk and Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka - in their capacities as the other former deputy presidents - is entitled to same.
Parties should be arguing that in these trying economic times all state entities should make the best attempt to make cutbacks.
The era we are entering requires leaders who will do whatever they can to cut on the pomp and ceremony so as to identify with the millions facing economic uncertainty.