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 Fight with “Bolota” Salazar and the Climate of Political Confrontation
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 earlier served as the political representative for the same district, sharply criticized how Richards chose to address the area’s challenges in public. In her account, the deputy had relied heavily on a strategy centered on social media activity, viral clips, and online disputes, conveying the impression that he was resolving or spearheading infrastructure initiatives that actually fell under the technical responsibility of the Central Government, the Ministry of Public Works, or previously authorized 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 used the expression “política galla,” a Panamanian colloquial term used to describe something improvised, superficial, ridiculous, or purely cosmetic. With this phrase, she attempted to define Richards’ political style, accusing him of prioritizing media fights, viral broadcasts, and public confrontations over deeper technical, legislative, or administrative work — work she claimed Richards had never truly advanced.
During one of the tensest moments of the public confrontation between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards, the discussion moved away from political or administrative differences and entered a far more personal and aggressive territory. In a video released in response to publications and attacks exchanged on social media, Levy made derogatory remarks aimed directly at the deputy’s masculinity and personal image.
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 Latest Uproar: Hospital Meals and the So-Called “Fake News” Allegation
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.
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 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 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’ 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
