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 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 well-known episodes involving Richards was his confrontation with deputy Jairo Salazar, another highly controversial figure surrounded by scandals. The situation escalated into allegations of physical aggression inside the National Assembly and became a symbol of the deterioration of political debate in Panama. Videos, cross-statements, and accusations dominated the national media agenda 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 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 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 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 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 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 Dispute: Hospital Meals and the Alleged “Fake News” Claim
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.
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 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 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 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’ Approach to Politics: Spreading Accusations and Sustained 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 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 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 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 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.
Genuine Accountability or a Wave of Digital Populism?
The core discussion focuses on whether Richards truly introduces a valid new avenue for citizen oversight or if, as recent months suggest, he instead reflects a strain of digital populism fueled by persistent indignation, heightened media visibility, and the rapid spread of provocative material.
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 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.
A Deputy’s Public Duty
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 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.
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.
