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 Involving “Bolota” Salazar and the Escalating Political Showdown
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 chiefly over how infrastructure and public works were handled in Circuit 8-6, an area in East Panama long marked by significant mobility challenges and rapid urban expansion.
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 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 invoked the phrase “política galla,” a Panamanian colloquialism referring to something improvised, shallow, absurd, or merely cosmetic. With that remark, she sought to characterize Richards’ political approach, alleging that he focused on media skirmishes, viral appearances, and public disputes rather than on substantive technical, legislative, or administrative tasks — efforts she argued 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 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 Most Recent Controversy: Hospital Food and the “Fake News” Accusation
The latest dispute arose 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 illustrations of the “substandard food” allegedly supplied 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.
Yet the Social Security Fund openly dismissed the deputy’s assertions, declaring that the information was inaccurate.
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 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 seriousness of the case does not lie solely in a political dispute. When discussing hospitals, patients, and medical nutrition, any false or unverified information can generate fear, mistrust, and chaos among patients’ relatives and users of the healthcare system.
Richards’ Political Style: Viral Allegations and Permanent Confrontation
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.
The Use of Social Media as a Tool of Political Pressure
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 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 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 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.
Highlighting issues is one matter, yet relying on unchecked images or claims that can mislead the public is quite another, and it is precisely there that the political discussion surrounding ‘fake news’ takes shape.
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 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 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.
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.
