The authority of a society is responsible for the welfares of its citizens, and thus its ultimate goal should be to help the public to solve their urgent problems rather than to suppress the populations. Conrespondingly, allowing its civilians to question the authoriy itself is a signal of recgnizing the authority's destiny. Only through facing with the problems its citizens propose, can the officials discovery the flaws in the regulations and then endeavor to make them better suitable to the society. So I agree that in most cases the claim is proper.
If the authority does not allow its citizens to question the laws, measures and established rules, there may be few original ideas and thus little progress in the society, for the reason that all people are qualified by the strict rules. What happens in Korea suitably illerstrats the idea: in Korea, all regulations and laws are promulgated by the government and permit no resistance and even reluctance to follow them and the economy and cultural development is hence worried, for the fact that all songs and literatures are to extol the leaders of the nation. In contrast, HongKong, where all people can ask the leaders fierce questions freely, and they even errect a special section for the public to send the information about their dissatisfactory aspects of the authorial actions.
The reason why allowing the public to question the authority can be a indication of the enhancement of the society may lies in the reason why people ask questions and what the questions function on the road to a better community. Most, if not all, question the authority not because they are anarchonists and willing to overturn the government but because they want their voice to be heared, their porblems to be solved, and their interests to be considered when measures are carried out. For example, homosexual persons demonstrate outside the official buildings to arouse the awearness of both leaders and public to protect their rights in the law, not to make the learders who neglect their existence step down. Through such demonstrations, laws can be emended to protect the social justice.
Admittedly, there are some cases in which the questioning of the public can bring disadvantages and even disasters for the society. Take Egypt for example, being long under a tumult society without a stable goverment, people there has become skeptic to any authority, subsequently, several govenments all fails to endure  to uniform the country, leaving the country's economy and social development unrealistic.Additionaly, when natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and droughts, or the erruption of fatal diseases, the most essential thing for all the people is to unite together to solve the urgent catastrophes, not to question whether the measures are suitable for the situation, since all measures are not perfect and if all come to sit down to find a impecable solutions, the result can be really a disaster.
Despite the special situations mentioned above, in most common societies, questioning the authority can be benificial for both the public and the government, and the further development of the society.