The second decade of the 21st century will be remembered for the rise of some of the most unorthodox politicians. The triumph of “populism” and the success of some policies have been greeted with expressions of shock and horror, yet very little has been done to try to understand why voters expressed these particular preferences in the voting booth.

There is one prism through which the last decade needs to be viewed. Many major political events were a reaction to or a result of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Elsewhere, the disenchantment and the failures of the post-colonial political order brought several issues to the fore.

The financial crisis led to the implementation of various policies to try to cushion its effects. There was a need to bail out banks despite their grave shortcomings. Such bailouts were accompanied by policies of austerity which hit those who were already struggling. This proved to be a lethal cocktail; few understood why banks needed to be bailed out and those who were already in need of government aid felt squeezed further by austerity measures and growing unemployment.

The hopes of the ‘Arab Spring’ – perhaps the misnomer of the decade – were soon dashed. Sensing a change in the zeitgeist, several groups, previously kept under wraps by an authoritarian regime which refused to dialogue with anyone who shared a different view, seized the moment and attempted to gain influence.

For a while, the rise of so-called Islamic State seemed unstoppable. The sense of fear and trepidation they managed to instil made their brand of terrorism successful. The inability of politicians to identify and engage with the root causes of such a phenomenon exacerbated the matter.

We fail whenever short-termism thrives; how much of our heritage is lost?

While Islamic State is no longer a serious threat, its effects are still affecting our societies. The rise in migration levels prompted by conflict and civil war, the pressure on already-strained social welfare budgets and the problems of sudden demographic changes led to demands which the political class failed to address.

Indeed, a great gulf emerged between a political class intent on self-preservation and an electorate which felt alienated by the response to their concerns.

The electorate was not to be trifled with; they turned to politicians who seemed to say all the right things but whose record in office had never been tested.

Rather than attempting to understand these changes, several politicians surrounded themselves with a ‘woke’ elite which massaged their bruised egos. They were told what they wanted to hear. It was not their fault or the fault of their policies that the electorate had rejected them, the voters were to blame. How could they possibly understand the complexities and intricacies of the various issues at hand? Despite the numerous defeats, these lessons of the past decades have not yet sunk in.

Malta was not immune to such developments. In the first years of this decade, the government attempted to introduce policies of careful stewardship which would cushion the harmful effects of the financial crisis.

The outbreak of civil war in Libya had the potential to inflict more damage to a vulnerable economy. Nonetheless, Malta emerged relatively unscathed.

A change in government in 2013 ushered in a new period fuelled by the promise of new civil liberties, widespread social change and economic prosperity.

Much of this was delivered although the assessment of historians in the future will be less kind than the immediate partisan reaction was.

At the close of the decade, we must confront our failings as a country and as a society. We failed when we fell short of offering the protection needed to safeguard the life of Daphne Caruana Galizia who was brutally assassinated in October 2017. We failed ourselves whenever we let the structures of corruption thrive. This is best exemplified in the triumph of sheer ugliness in both our urban and natural environment.

We fail whenever short-termism thrives; how much of our heritage is lost?

How many have been priced out of the property market and now stand without hope? Who stands to benefit from an economic model which depends on the importation of “human resources” – a callous term if there was ever one?

The recent case involving the possible expulsion of children – sons and daughters of such employees – is just one of the affronts to human dignity which the short-termism of the past decade has given rise to.

A short newspaper column could never attempt to sum up the past decade; for starters, we lack the benefit of hindsight. Nonetheless, we can try a preliminary analysis of how this decade will be remembered.

It was primarily the decade of the average person – the man in the street – the activist. Notwithstanding the ideological and political differences, there is much which unites the Occupy movements, the climate change activist, the Gilets Jaunes and others.

Despite their vocal activism, this decade does not mark their strength but, rather, their weaknesses before state structures which continuously fail to deliver. Such groups were forced to protest because of a lack of concrete action. It is a decade marked by the realisation that the political class fell short and thus excluded many who had no access to the corridors of power.

It is the decade which proved that old saying right; that governments are not the solution, but the problem.