# Talk:Temporary National Representation

Tomobe03, I have a few comments:

I left a few clarification tags in the article.
Rephrased now. Thanks for the prompt.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
What is meant by "centralization"? That's a broad term and it's never made clear what that entailed in this pre-constitutional context.
I have added information on the options advocated by major camps.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Are there any views that diverge from Banac's regarding the reason for the delay or from Lampe's regarding the reason that it failed to enact 35 pieces of legislation that should be afforded due weight?
It appears that there are none.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
How was the presidency selected?
The sources don't say. I'll try to find and include the information.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The article states that the Temporary National Representation could only legislate the policy of the Constitutional Assembly and its agenda, but then says that The coalition began reversing repressive measures previously introduced against regional administrations in Croatia and Slovenia. Who introduced those repressive measures, what were they, and how could the PNP reverse them? Likewise, the second paragraph of "Legislative work and dissolution"  lists many other bills unrelated to the Constitutional Assembly and its agenda.
The article says the government did not recognise the Temporary National Representation's right to legislate beyond their own rules and the election law. It also says that the government ruled through administrative decrees and similar. I found no source saying explicitly what the TNR could legally legislate. However, neither the TNR nor the government were elected, the government was not confirmed by the TNR (the first government predated the TNR) and none were accountable to the other so it is plausible that the government denied the TNR's right to legislate simply because the ruling party/coalition could govern without having to deal with the opposition - and no party had majortiy in the TNR. In short, while it is clear that the TNR were to enact election law, the sources do not define (or limit) the scope of their authoritiy, but the government (regardless of who was in office at various times during the two years of the TNR) would be inclined to sideline the TNR as much as possible for practical reasons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that needs to be clarified then, because I read the article as saying that they could only legislate on those topics. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The first paragraph of "Legislative work and dissolution" is unclear. Which of Pribićević's actions were "divisive", why did Protić feel that he could work with Radić, why was Pribićević opposed, and how is any of that related to the failure to pass legislation?
The sources appear to point to arbitrariness of his actions rather than specific events as the source of divisiveness.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Voorts, thank you for improving this article through your edits and comments/questions. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)