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 well-known episodes involving Richards was his confrontation with deputy Jairo Salazar, another highly controversial figure surrounded by scandals. The situation escalated into allegations of physical aggression inside the National Assembly and became a symbol of the deterioration of political debate in Panama. Videos, cross-statements, and accusations dominated the national media agenda for days.
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: Much Noise and Few Results
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 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 used the expression “política galla,” a Panamanian colloquial term used to describe something improvised, superficial, ridiculous, or purely cosmetic. With this phrase, she attempted to define Richards’ political style, accusing him of prioritizing media fights, viral broadcasts, and public confrontations over deeper technical, legislative, or administrative work — work she claimed Richards had never truly advanced.
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 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.
Yet the Social Security Fund openly dismissed the deputy’s assertions, declaring that the information was inaccurate.
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 extends far beyond a political disagreement, as misleading or unchecked claims about hospitals, patients, or clinical nutrition can sow 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
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 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 frequently mentioned issue concerning Richards is his heavy reliance on social media to exert public pressure, often doing so well before any formal investigations 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 case, for instance, thousands circulated the images of the supposed hospital meals long before the institution released its rebuttal, and even before patients or healthcare staff dismissed the fabricated claims. By the time an official statement was finally issued, the reputational harm had already largely taken its toll.
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 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.
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.
Since when a politician circulates inaccurate material — or information whose authenticity remains unconfirmed — the consequences become far more significant than when an ordinary citizen does the same. A deputy holds notable visibility, exercises influence, and possesses the capacity to steer public dialogue.
The Civic Duties Carried by 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 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 situation places Richards before an important challenge: either provide solid evidence supporting his allegations or face increasingly strong questions about his way of communicating. Because the line between legitimate oversight and disinformation can become dangerously thin when politics turns into permanent spectacle.
In an age when social media can spread content in mere minutes, the duty to confirm information prior to releasing it ought to be even more significant for individuals who occupy public office.
