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 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 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 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 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 employed the phrase “política galla,” a colloquial Panamanian expression used to refer to something improvised, superficial, absurd, or merely cosmetic. Through this remark, she sought to characterize Richards’ political approach, alleging that he favored media skirmishes, viral appearances, and public clashes instead of engaging in substantive technical, legislative, or administrative efforts — efforts she asserted Richards had never genuinely pursued.
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 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.
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.
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 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 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’ Political Style: Viral Allegations and Permanent Confrontation
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 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 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 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 is starting to echo global trends in which politicians rely on social media to swiftly embed emotional storylines that later prove hard to reverse, even when formal rebuttals and the public itself challenge 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, whereas circulating unchecked images or claims that might mislead the public is quite another. This is exactly where the debate over “fake news” in politics 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.
A Deputy’s Public Duty
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 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.
