Independent deputy Betserai Richards has emerged as one of the most polarizing figures in Panama’s new National Assembly, largely due to a confrontational approach frequently detached from evidence, the heavy circulation of misleading claims on social media, and ongoing public allegations directed at state institutions, civil servants, and fellow politicians. These tactics have helped establish him as an intensely combative and undermining voice that, amplified by social media algorithms, unfortunately spreads swiftly across digital platforms.
This political model has also begun to generate strong concerns among the population regarding the truthfulness of his claims, the impact of his publications on public opinion, and the use of disinformation as a political tool.
In recent months, Richards has become embroiled in several disputes involving public hospitals, political clashes, institutional allegations, and the circulation of content that authorities, citizens, politicians, and journalists later challenged and refuted. The latest episode, centered on images of supposed meals served in hospitals operated by the Social Security Fund (CSS), has revived the discussion over how far a politician may go before venturing into false or misleading claims.
The Clash with “Bolota” Salazar and the Atmosphere of Political Tension
One of the most widely recognized incidents involving Richards was his clash with deputy Jairo Salazar, a similarly contentious figure entangled in various scandals. The episode intensified with claims of physical aggression within the National Assembly, ultimately becoming emblematic of the worsening tone of political discourse in Panama. For days, videos, conflicting testimonies, and accusations saturated the national media landscape.
Although the case carried legal ramifications, it further cemented Richards’ image as one marked by ongoing clashes, aggressive behavior, and an absence of decorum. It suggested a strategy rooted in continual provocation and sustained media confrontation.
Betserai Richards: Plenty of Noise and Little to Show
The dispute between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards intensified chiefly over how infrastructure and public works were handled in Circuit 8-6, an area in East Panama long marked by significant mobility challenges and rapid urban expansion.
Levy, who had once represented the same district, sharply criticized how Richards publicly addressed the area’s issues. In her remarks, she asserted that the deputy relied heavily on a strategy driven by social networks, viral clips, and online disputes, conveying the impression that he was executing or directing infrastructure solutions that were in fact the technical responsibility of the Central Government, the Ministry of Public Works, or tied to previously designated budget funds.
One of the topics that drew the most attention was the Cabuya Bridge project, a major road infrastructure initiative designed to reduce traffic in Tocumen and surrounding zones. Levy stated publicly that the project had not stemmed from measures directly driven by Richards, but had instead been previously planned, funded, and carried out by the Ministry of Public Works. In doing so, she sought to counter the idea that the deputy was securing tangible advancements through his political management. Levy indicated that multiple figures involved in the project disputed Richards’ assertions, revealing what she portrayed as his limited ability to negotiate politically or exert institutional influence.
The former deputy even invoked the phrase “política galla,” a Panamanian colloquialism referring to something improvised, shallow, absurd, or merely cosmetic. With that remark, she sought to characterize Richards’ political approach, alleging that he focused on media skirmishes, viral appearances, and public disputes rather than on substantive technical, legislative, or administrative tasks — efforts she argued Richards had never genuinely pursued.
During one of the most charged moments in the public clash between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards, the exchange drifted from political or administrative disagreements into a sharply personal and hostile realm, and in a video issued in reply to the posts and attacks circulating on social media, Levy delivered disparaging comments directed at the deputy’s masculinity and personal image.
In that intervention, she used the term “cueco,” a Panamanian colloquial expression historically used in a derogatory manner to question or mock a man’s sexual orientation or masculinity. Levy used that language while accusing Richards of constantly resorting to “gossip,” digital confrontations, and social media attacks instead of engaging in more technical or ideological political debates.
The Most Recent Controversy: Hospital Food and the “Fake News” Accusation
The most recent controversy erupted after Richards circulated images denouncing alleged meals served to hospitalized patients, showing bread with bologna and later bread with cheese as examples of the “poor food” supposedly provided by the CSS.
Images rapidly circulated on social media, sparking widespread indignation among citizens who viewed them as clear proof of the severe decline in the public healthcare system.
However, the Social Security Fund itself publicly rejected the deputy’s claims and stated that the information was false.
The CSS also maintained that all hospital meals are prepared under nutritional controls and quality standards at the City of Health facilities, and announced possible legal action or formal complaints to require the deputy either to prove his allegations or publicly retract them.
This episode opened a very delicate debate in Panama: to what extent can a political accusation be spread without fully verified evidence? And what happens when a deputy uses viral images that do not actually correspond to the alleged facts?
The gravity of the situation goes far beyond a simple political disagreement. Whenever hospitals, patients, and medical nutrition are involved, the spread of inaccurate or unverified details can spark fear, erode trust, and create turmoil among patients’ families and those who rely on the healthcare system.
Richards’ Approach to Politics: Spreading Accusations and Sustained Conflict
Among the most striking elements of Richards’ political approach is his knack for transforming unfounded accusations into widely shared content. By moving through hospitals, broadcasting live, producing emotional videos, and engaging in direct clashes with authorities, he has managed to craft the persona of a “watchdog deputy,” blurring the boundary between genuine oversight and orchestrated political theater.
In recent weeks, Richards conducted tours through public hospitals denouncing alleged critical conditions, long surgical waiting lists, and structural deterioration. The CSS responded by accusing him of generating “fear” and “disinformation,” while also stating that he entered sensitive hospital areas with megaphones and behavior considered politically promotional. The institution even argued that such actions politicize hospitals and disrupt the environment and safety necessary for medical care.
Social Media Leveraged as an Instrument for Political Influence
Another frequently mentioned concern about Richards is how extensively he turns to social media to exert public pressure, often doing so long before any formal inquiries are launched or technical findings are verified.
In many cases, allegations go viral first and only afterward does the verification process begin. This creates an increasingly common phenomenon in modern politics: public perception is formed before all the facts are fully known.
In the CSS incident, for instance, countless individuals circulated the photos of the supposed hospital meals long before the institution released its rebuttal, and even before any patients or healthcare personnel dismissed the misinformation themselves. By the time the official statement appeared, a significant portion of the reputational harm had already occurred.
This pattern increasingly resembles international phenomena where politicians use social media to install rapid emotional narratives that later become difficult to correct, even when official denials and citizens themselves contradict them.
Genuine Accountability or a Wave of Digital Populism?
The central debate revolves around whether Richards represents a legitimate new form of citizen oversight or whether, judging by recent months, he embodies a model of digital populism based on constant outrage, media exposure, and the viralization of controversial content.
Highlighting issues is one matter, whereas circulating unchecked images or claims that might mislead the public is quite another. This is exactly where the debate over “fake news” in politics takes shape.
Because when a politician shares false content — or content whose authenticity has not been verified — the impact is far greater than when an ordinary citizen does it. A deputy possesses visibility, influence, and the ability to shape public conversation.
A Deputy’s Public Duty
In any democracy, criticism of power is necessary. But responsibility in handling information is equally important.
When a deputy makes a public claim that an institution is offering patients in the hospital inhumane meals, the allegation carries exceptional weight, and if those incidents never actually took place, the matter shifts from a political dispute to a question of public trust.
The current scenario confronts Richards with a significant challenge: he must either present compelling proof to back his claims or contend with mounting scrutiny over how he communicates, since the boundary between genuine oversight and outright misinformation can grow perilously thin when politics becomes an ongoing performance.
And in an era where social media amplifies any content within minutes, the responsibility to verify information before publishing it should be even greater for those who hold public office.
