MOSCOW -- Relapses are always regrettable, particularly when the gains lost had been won at such a high cost.

It took the Russian people about two centuries to get a political system that provided for free elections, but it has taken only 15 years for them to lose it. The presidential elections scheduled for March 14 are farcical: Russian President Vladimir Putin won't be the only person on the ballot, yet the participation of the candidates is purely symbolic. Not one has the slightest chance of challenging Putin in earnest.

Without doubt, Russia is doing better economically under Putin than under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, and it has become more politically stable as well. But the overall improvements are not enough to assure Putin an easy victory in March without special efforts on the part of him and his team.

Outside Moscow and other bigger metropolises, living standards remain dismal. Peripheral regions of the country are still neglected and mismanaged, and occasionally cities in Siberia and the Far East find themselves without central heating in winter.

The war in Chechnya continues, resulting in heavy casualties on the battlefield and terrorist attacks in Russia. Only a few weeks ago, a ferocious blast took place on the Moscow subway during rush hour. In spite of a number of show trials, corruption thrives on all levels, making life hard for businesses and impossible for individuals. All this should have made Putin's re-election problematic, yet it hasn't.

Naivete is not among Putin's shortcomings. All too aware of his vulnerability, he started preparing for the March 2004 elections well in advance. Between 2001 and 2003, he successfully eliminated freedom of speech on Russian television by shutting down independent channels and putting national broadcasting under strict government control.

That, however, wasn't good enough for him. Following his conservative tastes, the very spirit of TV narrative and presentation had to go back to the Soviet pattern. The president dominates the news -- sometimes scolding, sometimes encouraging his ministers -- uninterrupted by any political commentary. Domestic blunders and mishaps are downplayed while every unfortunate, if not particularly important, event in the West gets blown out of proportion (for example, according to Russian TV, this year's harsh winter in the United States has been apocalyptic).

In the Soviet days, depending on the weather, a TV broadcast from a Western capital began with either, "It is dark, cold and rainy here in London (Paris, Lisbon, Tokyo), and that makes the local working people feel even worse," or with, "In spite of the spring sunshine, the workers of Madrid (Rome, Sydney) feel depressed and downtrodden." Putin hasn't gone that far yet, but give him time.

Not too many people read newspapers other than gossipy tabloids describing conspiracy theories and movie stars' divorces. For the majority of the Russian population, television is the source of news, if not opinions. Having ousted the opposition from the air, Putin basically ensured his re-election in March.

It is sometimes argued that Putin is the only politician in Russia capable of winning voters' sympathies in 2004. This is hardly true. The liberal camp has young and energetic Boris Nemtsov, who served as governor of Nizhny Novgorod and later as deputy prime minister. He is a good speaker and possesses exceptional charisma.

The centrists have at least two would-be presidents: Viktor Chernomyrdin and Yury Luzhkov. Chernomyrdin presided over Russia's thriving gas industry and then, in the capacity of prime minister, successfully led the country through the economically turbulent mid-1990s. Luzhkov is Moscow's best-ever mayor. He has overseen the construction of modern highways and infrastructure in the capital, and every retiree in Moscow gets various benefits from city hall, including free public transportation and an extremely useful pension subsidy.

All three leaders -- Nemtsov, Chernomyrdin, and Luzhkov -- used to express their presidential ambitions, but being realistic politicians, they didn't even attempt to enter the 2004 race.

Strictly speaking, Russian voters have a choice, as a number of unimportant politicians are running against Putin, but this is merely a sham intended to (badly) conceal the Kremlin's new authoritarian facade. Some of the candidates appear to be making an extra effort to give the charade a farcical nature.

Ivan Rybkin disappeared from the radar for a few days, causing the international media to talk about possible abduction or assassination, only to re-emerge in a hotel room in the Ukraine capital of Kiev. He explained away his absence as a vacation. Reportedly, his indignant wife said such a guy couldn't be trusted to run the country. Indeed.

The presence of people like Rybkin in the race enables Putin to refute international observers' allegations that democratic procedures are being violated in the course of the elections. Even with all the ballots cast for other candidates and a scrupulous count, Putin is still going to win by a landslide.

However, there is a sadder observation to be made, too: The majority of Russian voters seem to be unperturbed by Putin's abuse of power. The first free presidential elections in Russia happened when the anticommunist liberal opposition had little access to TV talk shows.

Yeltsin was brought to power not by campaign managers and public-relations wizards but by the will of the people. It seems that after 15 years of fierce political battles, the average Russian voter is tired of multiple choices and is content with the traditional Kremlin menu: one person, one vote; one job, one candidate.