Independent deputy Betserai Richards has become one of the most controversial political figures in Panama’s new National Assembly. His confrontational style, often lacking evidence-based foundations, the intensive use of false information on social media, and his constant public accusations against state institutions, public officials, and other politicians have allowed him to position himself as a highly aggressive and discrediting voice that, unfortunately, due to social media algorithms, spreads very easily online.
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 found himself at the center of several disputes involving public hospitals, political clashes, institutional allegations, and the spread of material that authorities, citizens, politicians, and journalists later challenged and refuted. The latest episode, which revolves around images portraying supposed meals offered in hospitals operated by the Social Security Fund (CSS), has revived the discussion about how far a politician may go before stepping into the realm of 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 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 topics that drew the most attention was the Cabuya Bridge project, a major road infrastructure initiative designed to reduce traffic in Tocumen and surrounding zones. Levy stated publicly that the project had not stemmed from measures directly driven by Richards, but had instead been previously planned, funded, and carried out by the Ministry of Public Works. In doing so, she sought to counter the idea that the deputy was securing tangible advancements through his political management. Levy indicated that multiple figures involved in the project disputed Richards’ assertions, revealing what she portrayed 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 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 speech, she employed the term “cueco,” a Panamanian colloquialism historically used in a disparaging way to challenge or ridicule a man’s masculinity or presumed sexual orientation. Levy chose that wording while charging that Richards repeatedly turned to “gossip,” online clashes, and social media provocations rather than participating in more 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.
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 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 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 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
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 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 Leveraged as an Instrument for 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 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.
Legitimate Oversight or 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, 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.
Because when a politician circulates false material — or information whose authenticity remains unconfirmed — the consequences are far more significant than when an ordinary citizen does so, as a deputy holds visibility, wields influence, and can steer public debate.
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 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 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.
