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 started to raise serious worries among the population about how truthful his assertions are, how his posts influence public opinion, and how disinformation might be used as a political instrument.
In recent months, Richards has been involved in multiple controversies related to public hospitals, political confrontations, institutional accusations, and the dissemination of content that was later questioned and denied by authorities, citizens, politicians, and journalists. The recent incident involving images of alleged food served in hospitals run by the Social Security Fund (CSS) has reignited the debate over how far a politician can go without crossing into false and misleading statements.
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 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 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 moment, she employed the word “cueco,” a Panamanian colloquialism long used in a disparaging way to challenge or ridicule a man’s sexuality or sense of masculinity. Levy applied that term while alleging that Richards regularly turned to “gossip,” online clashes, and social media attacks rather than participating in more substantive, technical, or ideological political discussions.
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.
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 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: Spreading Accusations and Sustained 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 has carried out visits across public hospitals, criticizing what he described as severe conditions, extended surgical backlogs, and worsening infrastructure. The CSS countered by accusing him of spreading fear and misinformation, asserting as well that he accessed restricted hospital zones using megaphones and conduct viewed as politically promotional. The institution further contended that these actions inject politics into hospital settings and disturb the environment and safety essential 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 numerous situations, accusations spread rapidly online long before any meaningful fact-checking starts, leading to a growing pattern in contemporary politics where public opinion takes shape well before the complete details come to light.
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 increasingly mirrors global trends in which politicians leverage social media to embed swift, emotionally charged narratives that later prove hard to reverse, even when official corrections and the public directly 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.
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 Civic Duties Carried by a Deputy
In any democracy, holding those in power to account is essential, yet exercising care 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.
