MOSCOW, 15 September 2004 — President Vladimir Putin will tighten his control over Russia with his plan to shake up government but risks undermining brittle post-Soviet democracy, analysts and liberals said.

A day after Putin invoked the bloody Beslan school siege and the fight against terrorism to justify revamping the electoral system, pro-Kremlin state television broadcast interviews with top officials praising his action. The reforms would do away with elections by popular vote for local governors. Candidates would be selected instead by the president and approved by regional assemblies.

Also eliminated would be individual constituencies to Parliament — a major way for opposition parties to win seats — to be elected in future solely on the basis of country-wide party lists.

Critics say the proposed changes are fresh proof the former KGB spy, who has muzzled independent media and turned Parliament and government into rubber stamps of Kremlin policy in four years in power, is rolling back post-Soviet democracy. Newspaper analysts, more critical but less influential than television, dismissed any notion the changes would unite society after the Beslan drama in southern Russia.

The daily Vedomosti, its headline baldly describing Putin as “Voter No. 1, the president who wants to choose governors himself,” dismissed any connection with rebel attacks. “The changes do not solve the problems of terrorism,” the daily quoted an expert close to the Kremlin as saying. “The authorities are simply using a sort of window of opportunity to boost control and there is nothing unusual in that.”

Stanislav Belkovsky, head of the Institute of National Strategy, told Vedomosti the moves would be no more successful than previous Kremlin reforms to consolidate power. “Our current system of power is very much like a Russia-wide organized crime gang,” he wrote. “The main aim of such gangs is to amass money on specific territories and guarantee the safety of those providing the money. Of course, even gangs need stability. But stability in their own way ... when leaders remain in place for decades.”

Soon after coming to power in 2000, Putin set about dismantling many of the reforms undertaken by his predecessor Boris Yeltsin in the aftermath of the collapse of Soviet rule. Regional leaders broadly back the Kremlin and would stand to remain in power if loyal to the president. Parliament is dominated by Putin supporters, with liberals all but eliminated, and state television rarely criticizes the president’s policies.

Some analysts acknowledged the reforms would boost central authority but might backfire by undermining public confidence. “These reforms are a big mistake,” said Boris Makarenko of the Institute of Political Technologies. “They will destroy intermediaries between Putin and the people. Some countries do well without these, but only if political parties enjoy trust. There has never been trust in Russian political parties and things are getting worse.”

Some commentators sounded a warning that the changes heralded a return to Soviet times, when the Kremlin’s will was imposed in the name of ideology and elections were a mere exercise in appointments made from above.

“No one anywhere, including the United States, considered changing constitutional arrangements after Sept. 11,” said Vladimir Kondratyev of NTV television, the sole national channel to offer any criticism of Putin’s proposals.

“Yet this is happening in our country and the danger is that we are returning to what we had in the not-so-distant past. Putin himself said that the system was doomed to failure. Why should we return to a doomed system?”