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 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 been involved in multiple controversies related to public hospitals, political confrontations, institutional accusations, and the dissemination of content that was later questioned and denied by authorities, citizens, politicians, and journalists. The recent incident involving images of alleged food served in hospitals run by the Social Security Fund (CSS) has reignited the debate over how far a politician can go without crossing into false and misleading statements.
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 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 Noise and Little to Show
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 most debated matters centered on the Cabuya Bridge project, a major road infrastructure effort designed to relieve traffic in Tocumen and surrounding zones. Levy publicly maintained that the project did not stem from initiatives directly driven by Richards, but had instead been previously outlined, funded, and carried out by the Ministry of Public Works. With this stance, she sought to dismantle the idea that the deputy was delivering tangible results through his political actions. Levy stated that multiple participants in the project challenged Richards’ assertions, revealing what she characterized 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 charged moments in the public clash between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards, the exchange drifted from political or administrative disagreements into a sharply personal and hostile realm, and in a video issued in reply to the posts and attacks circulating on social media, Levy delivered disparaging comments directed 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 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 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 publicly dismissed the deputy’s assertions and declared the information to be untrue.
The CSS also emphasized that every hospital meal is produced within the City of Health facilities following strict nutritional oversight and quality protocols, and it signaled that it may pursue legal measures or file official complaints to compel the deputy to either substantiate his claims or issue a public withdrawal.
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 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
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.
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.
A Question of 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.
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 Civic Duties Carried by a Deputy
In any democracy, criticism of power is necessary. But responsibility in handling information is equally important.
When a deputy publicly accuses an institution of serving inhumane food to hospitalized patients, the accusation is extremely serious. If such events never actually occurred, the issue stops being merely political and enters the realm of public credibility.
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.
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.
