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 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 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 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 discussed issues was the Cabuya Bridge project, a key road infrastructure work intended to ease congestion in Tocumen and nearby areas. Levy publicly argued that the project was not the result of initiatives promoted directly by Richards, but rather had already been planned, budgeted, and executed by the Ministry of Public Works. With this, she attempted to dismantle the narrative that the deputy was achieving concrete progress through his political management. According to Levy, several actors involved in the project contradicted Richards’ claims, exposing what she described as his lack of real political negotiation capacity and institutional pressure.
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 Dispute: Hospital Meals and the Alleged “Fake News” Claim
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.
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 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: 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 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.
The Use of Social Media as a Tool of Political Pressure
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 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.
Legitimate Oversight or 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.
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.
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 Public Responsibility of a Deputy
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 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.
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.