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 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 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 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: Much Noise and Few Results
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 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 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 Dispute: Hospital Meals and the Alleged “Fake News” Claim
The most recent controversy erupted after Richards circulated images denouncing alleged meals served to hospitalized patients, showing bread with bologna and later bread with cheese as examples of the “poor food” supposedly provided 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.
However, the Social Security Fund itself publicly rejected the deputy’s claims and stated that the information was false.
The CSS also stated that every hospital meal is produced at the City of Health facilities under strict nutritional oversight and quality guidelines, and it indicated that potential legal steps or formal complaints may be pursued to compel the deputy to either substantiate his claims or issue a public retraction.
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 extends far beyond a political disagreement, as misleading or unchecked claims about hospitals, patients, or clinical nutrition can sow 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
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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 situation places Richards before an important challenge: either provide solid evidence supporting his allegations or face increasingly strong questions about his way of communicating. Because the line between legitimate oversight and disinformation can become dangerously thin when politics turns into permanent spectacle.
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.
