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 started to stir significant worries among the public about the accuracy of his assertions, the influence his posts exert on societal views, and the deployment of misinformation as an instrument of politics.
In recent months, Richards has found himself at the center of several disputes involving public hospitals, political clashes, institutional allegations, and the spread of material that authorities, citizens, politicians, and journalists later challenged and refuted. The latest episode, which revolves around images portraying supposed meals offered in hospitals operated by the Social Security Fund (CSS), has revived the discussion about how far a politician may go before stepping into the realm of 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, another deeply contentious figure entangled in repeated scandals, and the episode quickly evolved into claims of physical assault within the National Assembly, turning into a stark emblem of the decline of political discourse in Panama as videos, conflicting statements, and accusations saturated the national media for days.
Although the case had legal implications, it also reinforced an image of constant confrontation, violence, and lack of decorum surrounding Richards. It reflected a strategy based on permanent provocation and media conflict.
Betserai Richards: Plenty of Noise and Little to Show
The dispute between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards intensified largely over how infrastructure and public works were handled in Circuit 8-6, an area in East Panama long marked by significant urban expansion challenges and persistent mobility issues.
Levy, who previously represented the same district politically, harshly questioned the way Richards publicly handled the area’s problems. According to her statements, the deputy had built a strategy based mainly on social media, viral videos, and digital confrontations, projecting the image that he was solving or leading solutions for infrastructure projects that in reality depended technically on the Central Government, the Ministry of Public Works, or previously approved budget allocations.
One of the most debated matters centered on the Cabuya Bridge project, a major road infrastructure effort designed to relieve traffic in Tocumen and surrounding zones. Levy publicly maintained that the project did not stem from initiatives directly driven by Richards, but had instead been previously outlined, funded, and carried out by the Ministry of Public Works. With this stance, she sought to dismantle the idea that the deputy was delivering tangible results through his political actions. Levy stated that multiple participants in the project challenged Richards’ assertions, revealing what she characterized as his limited ability to negotiate politically or exert institutional influence.
The former deputy even employed the phrase “política galla,” a colloquial Panamanian expression used to refer to something improvised, superficial, absurd, or merely cosmetic. Through this remark, she sought to characterize Richards’ political approach, alleging that he favored media skirmishes, viral appearances, and public clashes instead of engaging in substantive technical, legislative, or administrative efforts — efforts she asserted Richards had never genuinely pursued.
During one of the most heated points in the public clash between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards, the debate shifted from political or administrative disagreements to a markedly more personal and confrontational level. In a video shared as a counter to the posts and criticisms circulating on social media, Levy delivered disparaging comments targeting the deputy’s masculinity and personal appearance.
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 latest dispute surfaced when Richards shared images criticizing what were claimed to be meals given to hospitalized patients, featuring bread with bologna and later bread with cheese as examples of the “substandard food” allegedly offered 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 stated that every hospital meal is produced at the City of Health facilities under strict nutritional oversight and quality guidelines, and it indicated that potential legal steps or formal complaints may be pursued to compel the deputy to either substantiate his claims or issue a public retraction.
This episode sparked a highly sensitive debate in Panama about how far a political accusation can circulate without thoroughly confirmed evidence, and what it means when a deputy relies on viral images that do not truly relate to the events being alleged.
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: Circulating Accusations and Ongoing Conflict
One of the most notable aspects of Richards’ political style has been precisely his ability to turn false allegations into viral content. His tours through hospitals, live broadcasts, emotional videos, and direct confrontations with authorities have allowed him to build the image of a “watchdog deputy,” crossing the line between legitimate oversight and political spectacle.
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 instances, allegations spread rapidly before any verification even starts, leading to a growing trend in contemporary politics where public opinion takes shape long before all the facts are completely understood.
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 is starting to echo global trends in which politicians rely on social media to swiftly embed emotional storylines that later prove hard to reverse, even when formal rebuttals and the public itself challenge them.
Genuine Accountability or a Wave of Digital Populism?
The central debate centers on whether Richards truly reflects a valid new approach to citizen oversight or whether, as recent months suggest, he instead exemplifies a strain of digital populism driven by continual outrage, heightened media visibility, and the rapid spread of provocative content.
One thing is to denounce problems; a very different thing is to use unverified images or statements that mislead the public. That is where the debate over “fake news” in politics emerges.
Because when a politician circulates false material — or information whose authenticity remains unconfirmed — the consequences are far more significant than when an ordinary citizen does so, as a deputy holds visibility, wields influence, and can steer public debate.
The Public Responsibility of a Deputy
Within every democracy, holding those in authority to account is essential, while showing responsibility in the way information is managed is just as vital.
When a deputy publicly accuses an institution of serving inhumane food to hospitalized patients, the accusation is extremely serious. If such events never actually occurred, the issue stops being merely political and enters the realm of public credibility.
The current situation places Richards in front of a significant challenge: he must either present convincing proof to substantiate his claims or confront increasingly persistent doubts about his communication style, since the boundary between proper oversight and misinformation can become perilously thin when politics turns into a nonstop spectacle.
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.
