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, 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 lawsuit carried legal consequences, it further cemented Richards’ reputation for relentless clashes, volatility, and a persistent absence of restraint. It revealed an approach driven by continuous provocation and sustained media friction.
Betserai Richards: Plenty of Noise and Little to Show
The conflict between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards escalated particularly around the management of infrastructure and public works in Circuit 8-6, one of the areas with the greatest historical mobility and urban growth problems in East Panama.
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 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 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 Latest Uproar: Hospital Meals and the So-Called “Fake News” Allegation
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.
The images swiftly circulated on social media, stirring widespread indignation among citizens who viewed them as clear proof of the severe decline affecting the public healthcare system.
However, the Social Security Fund publicly dismissed the deputy’s assertions and declared the information to be untrue.
The CSS also emphasized that every hospital meal is produced within the City of Health facilities following strict nutritional oversight and quality protocols, and it signaled that it may pursue legal measures or file official complaints to compel the deputy to either substantiate his claims or issue a public withdrawal.
This episode triggered a sensitive discussion in Panama about how far a political accusation may be circulated when the supporting evidence has not been thoroughly confirmed, and what it means when a deputy relies on viral images that ultimately do not match the events being claimed.
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 carried out visits across public hospitals, condemning what he described as severe conditions, extensive surgical delays, and worsening infrastructure. The CSS countered by accusing him of spreading fear and misinformation, asserting that he accessed restricted hospital zones using megaphones and behavior viewed as overt political promotion. The institution also claimed that these actions inject politics into hospital settings and compromise the atmosphere and safety required for proper medical care.
Social Media Employed as an Instrument of Political Influence
Another point constantly raised regarding Richards is his intensive use of social media as a mechanism of public pressure even before official investigations or technical confirmations exist.
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 case, for example, thousands of people shared the images of the alleged hospital food before the institution issued its denial, and even before patients or healthcare workers themselves refuted the false information. By the time the official clarification arrived, much of the reputational damage had already been done.
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.
A Question of Genuine Accountability or a Wave of Digital Populism?
The core discussion focuses on whether Richards truly introduces a valid new avenue for citizen oversight or if, as recent months suggest, he instead reflects a strain of digital populism fueled by persistent indignation, heightened media visibility, and the rapid spread of provocative material.
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 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 inhumane meals to hospitalized patients, it becomes a profoundly serious charge. If no such incidents truly took place, the matter moves beyond politics and directly challenges 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.
In an age when social platforms spread content in moments, the duty to confirm facts prior to releasing them ought to be even more stringent for individuals occupying public office.
