Once more, this dichotomy can be read between the lines of law 42 since every version of it specifies that the rewards instituted by this law cannot be applied to those who ?fought against the revolution?. At the discursive, ideological level, the Us/Them opposition is evident. During the events of December 1989 this did have a symbolic effectiveness as it mobilized the population to defend the vital points of the capital against the ?terrorist? threat.

In reality, however, the us and them categories were very ambiguous and extremely confusing; the consensual notion of Us, intensively constructed by the media, which mobilized a great part of the population around the new ?emanated power?, in fact have concealed the existence and the confrontation of different competing groups and factions. On the other hand, the them category of enemies, who represented a danger from which the people had to defend themselves by uniting was hardly identified during and after the revolution either. The idea of fighting implies the existence of an enemy, the existence of winners and losers. But this screenplay proves its weakness in this respect as well. In the apparent logic of rewarding after the fighting ?which might find its equivalents in the war history- one side of the coin is still missing: the identification of those forces that were responsible for producing so many victims and their punishment. First of all this is about the ?terrorists? claimed by the tele-revolution after the dictators fled on 22 December. Even though the collective psychosis of the terrorists produced many more victims than Ceausescu?s repressive forces up to 22 of December, it is generally known that the subsequent investigations did not succeed in finding any genuine terrorist. All those suspected and captured in the psychotic period of the revolution were subsequently released. These unidentified entities rather represented rhetorical means, elements of scenery in a screenplay of a tragically revolutionary performance; meanwhile the actual persons who participated in the repression ordered by Ceausescu in the period of 16-22 of December 1989 and who can be clearly identified by their victims were not actually made responsible.

In the trials of the revolutions (which were initiated in Timisoara, where they came to an end in 2000, and in Cluj, where the Supreme Court sentenced a minimum punishment for the Army representatives) the general trend has been to delay matters for as long as possible to escape the law; in such a manner that those whose lives had been dramatically damaged were denied the moral right to find out the truth and justice.

To return to the effects of law 42, the climax of the conflicting tension between the categories of participants that this law referred to was reached in 1996 when an abrupt split in the social identity of the revolutionaries, discriminating between us (meaning the genuine revolutionaries) and them (meaning the impostors), was favoured. This happened in the framework of an inflationary issuing of ??revolutionary? certificates?, as a consequence of a massive awarding of such documents to those who in one way or another had managed to claim their identity as ?direct participants with special merits in the revolution?.

The means by which the revolutionary files were produced are not hard to imagine in a culture favouring nepotism like the Romanian one, which is biased toward abuses and corruption.[6] All these strategies were possible because of the weakness and the versatility of the law, the lack of objective criteria by which such a vague identity could be claimed. Consequently, the number of persons acknowledged as ?fighters in the revolution; direct participants with special merits? grew dramatically: in 2000 in Monitorul Oficial (the Gazette) 17,126 persons were enlisted with the status of ?participant with special merits?, while the number of the titles of ?martyr-heroes? was 27; the numbers of the titles of injured revolutionaries was 73 and that of the imprisoned - 108 persons [cf. Monitorul Oficial: 100 bis, 7 March, 2000]. The effect of this inflation was a suffocating sense of marginalisation by those who had had revolutionary files drawn up by the prosecutor since 1990 ? that is before the delivery of material rewards- but been overwhelmed by the newcomers added to the list in 1996. This inevitably led to discrediting the identity of the revolutionary in the public eye. What consequences has this phenomenon had upon the social identity of the revolutionary?