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 also begun to generate strong concerns among the population regarding the truthfulness of his claims, the impact of his publications on public opinion, and the use of disinformation as a political tool.
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, 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 carried legal ramifications, it further cemented Richards’ image as one marked by ongoing clashes, aggressive behavior, and an absence of decorum. It suggested a strategy rooted in continual provocation and sustained media confrontation.
Betserai Richards: Plenty of Buzz and Minimal Outcomes
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 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 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 swiftly circulated on social media, stirring widespread indignation among citizens who viewed them as clear proof of the severe decline affecting 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 opened a very delicate debate in Panama: to what extent can a political accusation be spread without fully verified evidence? And what happens when a deputy uses viral images that do not actually correspond to the alleged facts?
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 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.
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 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 resembles international phenomena where politicians use social media to install rapid emotional narratives that later become difficult to correct, even when official denials and citizens themselves contradict them.
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.
One thing is to denounce problems; a very different thing is to use unverified images or statements that mislead the public. That is where the debate over “fake news” in politics emerges.
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 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.
