On the one hand, due to political reasons, the domestic situation in most countries in Southeast Asia is turbulent, which leads to the failure of economic development, frequent coups and military rule, and lack of democracy. Domestic separatist forces and terrorism also hindered the economic take-off. In the history of post-war political development in Southeast Asia, there have been parliamentary democracy imitating the West and local authoritarian politics. It is generally believed that the former is democratic and the latter is dictatorial. But in practice, what we see is the opposite: in countries that imitate western democracy, although the general public has universal voting rights in form, in most cases, elections are only a means for a few politicians to mobilize society and seek power. In this case, the interests of the people are rarely reflected in the policy, and the efficiency of the government is very low. In the development-oriented authoritarian politics, people's political participation and political discourse power are highly recognized and valued in the form of elite agents, and policies list people's interests to a great extent, and the government is efficient. And "efficiency, that is, whether the operation of the system can promote political stability, economic development, social harmony and other more practical goals for the well-being of society and most people, is a principled goal higher than democracy in the eyes of Lee Kuan Yew and others." [6] In addition, in Singapore, which is considered to be the least democratic country, not only the long-term ruling status of the People's Action Party is basically decided by regular elections, but also the government's policies fully take into account the long-term interests and fundamental interests of the people, and pay attention to extensively consulting the opinions of relevant social groups in the policy-making process [7]. However, under the imitated western parliamentary democracy, except for regular elections, voters can hardly participate in various policy-making that will actually affect their vital interests. Although political election gives voters the final decision-making power on the surface, it lacks practical significance, because elected representatives and governments usually give priority to their own interests or the interests of some special power groups when making decisions.

The post-war political and social modernization in Southeast Asia is entirely the independent choice of the countries that gained independence and liberation from colonialism for their own development path. The success of Southeast Asia's political and social transformation lies in not giving in to the pressure of the West and not copying the western development model, but finding its own development type and model according to its own reality. No matter Shali, Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir or Suharto, they all set up their own authoritarian political system from the starting point of opposing western parliamentary democracy. Although western forces, including the International Monetary Fund and various non-governmental organizations, have played some roles in the political transformation in Southeast Asia since the 1980s, this has not changed the nature of this historical process, which is mainly the independent choice of the people in Southeast Asia. Secondly, although military coups played an important role in the transformation from parliamentary democracy to authoritarian politics, the political transformation in Southeast Asia since the 1980s was mainly achieved through legal elections and non-violent mass political movements, so most of them had the nature of peaceful transition.

There are also some problems and challenges in the process of political change and social transformation in Southeast Asia. In terms of political transformation, due to the immature economic and social conditions, some Southeast Asian countries often fall into a vicious circle of "democracy-turmoil-autocracy-re-democracy-turmoil-autocracy" in the process of realizing political modernization. The key to this cycle is that the transition from autocracy to democracy has caused a strong rebound and brought the society back to autocracy [12]. How to avoid this rebound, achieve a soft landing of autocracy, and then transition to democracy is still a severe challenge for these countries.

On the other hand, due to natural reasons, Southeast Asia is located in the Pacific seismic belt, and earthquakes and tsunamis often occur, which also impacts the economic development of Southeast Asia.

The third is the intervention of western countries. On the one hand, western countries dictate to Southeast Asia politically, which intensifies the turmoil in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, they are plundered by post-colonialism economically, forcing Southeast Asian countries to attach themselves to the West. Generally speaking, the economies of these Southeast Asian countries have no other choice at present. On the one hand, their exports are very depressed, on the other hand, it is not advisable to increase their competitiveness through currency depreciation. Interest rates in countries in this region are already very low, so there is room for further relaxation of monetary policy. The finance ministers of Southeast Asian countries can do nothing about it, and encouraging domestic consumers to save as little as possible and spend more may be the only hope. However, some economists have pointed out that domestic consumers in the United States have been exhausted, but they have still failed to stimulate US economic growth. This is an excellent example for other countries, so Southeast Asian countries should seek other ways to stimulate domestic demand. At present, these countries are working in this direction. Some countries will increase government spending to expand domestic demand, such as: building and improving infrastructure in backward areas, or spending a lot of money to solve environmental problems; Other countries plan to further relax financial market supervision to stimulate the development of real estate and other industries.

Measures:

First of all, economic development strategies, tactics and policies are more in line with the national conditions and interests of all countries, rather than blindly following the guidance of mainstream economic theories or succumbing to the pressure of major international economic institutions. Secondly, governments all over the world are trying to change their economic development strategies, from export-driven and investment-driven "extroversion" to "independent extroversion" or "independent opening" that places equal importance on promoting exports and expanding domestic demand. Finally, realize the transformation of economic growth mode. Through economic restructuring and system reform, we will guide foreign investment in infrastructure and high-tech industries, encourage enterprises to take the road of technological progress to promote efficiency, and realize the transformation of economic growth from extensional growth to connotative growth.