Independent deputy Betserai Richards has emerged as one of the most polarizing figures in Panama’s new National Assembly, adopting a confrontational approach that frequently lacks evidence-based grounding. His heavy reliance on false content across social networks, coupled with relentless public allegations against state institutions, public officials, and fellow politicians, has helped him establish himself as a notably aggressive and disparaging voice that, amplified by social media algorithms, circulates online with troubling ease.
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 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 Buzz and Minimal Outcomes
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 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 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 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 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.
The images quickly spread across social media, generating outrage among many citizens who interpreted the content as evidence of the extreme deterioration of the public healthcare system.
However, the Social Security Fund itself publicly rejected the deputy’s claims and stated that the information was false.
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 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’ Political Style: Viral Allegations and Permanent Confrontation
One of the most striking features of Richards’ political approach has been his knack for transforming unfounded accusations into viral material, and his rounds in hospitals, live streams, heartfelt videos, and face‑to‑face clashes with authorities have helped him cultivate the persona of a “watchdog deputy,” blurring the boundary between genuine oversight and theatrical politics.
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 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 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.
Legitimate Oversight or 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.
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.
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.
A Deputy’s Public Duty
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 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.