Asian financial crisis was a terrifying nightmare for every SEA countries especially Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. The disaster of Asian financial has dragged some regions into many difficulties. In that, political struggles of those countries were one of the drawbacks they got from this financial catastrophe. Whether they want it or not, eventually, the countries have to make an adjustment and do as what the circumstance has forced them to do. The crisis has brought changes in the governance of affected area. Due to the fact that those countries were suffering from the economic crisis and there weren’t any solutions to this problem, some political changes have been made, in order to find a way out from this troublesome situation. Various countries of Southeast Asia like Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, and the Philippines have faced the problem in the management of government with incomplete transitions from authoritarian to democratic governance. The crisis contributed to the chaos in Indonesia, which leaded to the collapsed of the President Suharto regime, the rise of people power in the Philippines, and also, liberal democracy did not grow in both Malaysia and Singapore but they seemed to be interested in liberalization. Most countries experienced difficulties in economic reform prescriptions; however, others didn’t agree with the prediction for political reforms as they thought it would bring more disadvantage to the nation such as the inability to control the administration of the country, and the contrasting views from population of its nation. Furthermore, with the performance of the region’s economic restoring to pre-crisis levels, the idea to create the development strategies and rebuilding political institutions existed and continued its action since then. This process is being framed by the appearance of new challenges to the democratic discourse in the form of “good governance” and “populism”. In addition, an analysis of the countries suffered from the crisis such as Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia reveal weak governance capacities to engage liberalization and globalization. The crisis has also brought a “political opportunity structure” that increase the strength of democratic and reformist movements under the slogan of “reformasi” which merged the call for both democracy and good governance of both Indonesia and Malaysia.Last but not least, the contrasting idea of democratic consolidation in these countries which leads to the shortfall of democratic. The crisis provided a quick action to deepen and consolidate democracy to prevent the abolishment of democracy in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, academics and activists had expressed the grief by the lack of substantial democratic gains in governance reform efforts since the crisis. A significant example of the political affection caused by the crisis in the East Asia was the internal chaos in Indonesia occurred during the financial crisis of Asean in 1997-98. Soon after the president of Indonesia,Suharto, was re-elected in 1998 and had formed a new cabinet,t here were demonstrations and criticisms at his government and officials. This problematic new cabinet contained a number of members from his crony-group and they did little to make improvement in the Indonesian market. Moreover, after the government of Indonesia decided to reduce the subsidies on fuel in early May, large-scale riots broke out in Medan, Jakarta and Solo, in which more than one thousand people were killed and thousands of infrastructures were destroyed. Eventually, on 14 May 1998 President Suharto resigned from his position as Indonesian president, due to the reason that all politicians decided not to join his new reorganized cabinet. During that time, the financial crisis was unstoppable and it led to social and political consequences.