A sentence

[chchkevin]

Dear Teachers,

Please help me understand the following sentence.
This is from an Opinion column in an Australian newspaper.

In this atmosphere a good government, rather than trying to delegitimise dissent, would be reaching out to institutionalise it, recognising that what's crap to one, may be fertiliser to another, and that institutions that foster dissent thrive.

Below is my interpretation;
A good government reaches out to institutionalise dissent rather than trying to delegitimise dissent. A good government should recognise that what's crap to one, may be fertiliser to another, otherwise, the institutions that foster dissent thrive.

I hope my interpretation would not too bad.

Thanks
chchkevin

[emsr2d2]

Dear Teachers,

Please help me understand the following sentence.
This is from an Opinion column in an Australian newspaper.

In this atmosphere a good government, rather than trying to delegitimise dissent, would be reaching out to institutionalise it, recognising that what's crap to one, may be fertiliser to another, and that institutions that foster dissent thrive.

Below is my interpretation;
A good government reaches out to institutionalise dissent rather than trying to delegitimise dissent. A good government should recognise that what's crap to one, may be fertiliser to another, otherwise, the institutions that foster dissent thrive.

I hope my interpretation would not too bad.

Thanks
chchkevin

It was fine right up to the end. By using the word "otherwise" you totally changed the meaning of the last sentence. It actually says that the government should recognise that institutions that foster dissent thrive.

[chchkevin]

I see.
I thought that the word "thrive" was used in negative sense in the first place.
The columnist has meant that the institutions accepting the dissent will be successful or healthier.