The solution offered is that the veto should be taken away and the consensus principle modified wherein large trading powers can negotiate themselves while "offering assurances to the smaller countries that they would receive the benefits of such negotiations and spared any undue burdens". Over the years, literature in relation to the WTO has been about how the WTO needs to be democratized and developing and least developed countries need to engage with the system more effectively. This piece reverses the debate by arguing that there is too much democracy in the WTO that is killing the institution. Should the WTO be less democratic and reflect the opinions, interests and negotiating priorities of the larger trading partners? Would it fade into oblivion if it did not? Do the realities of trading relations demand a more nuanced understanding of trade governance that recognizes inherent inequities in the system? Many developing countries argued that the conclusion of the Uruguay round of negotiations was done without their complete understanding and involvement. WIll de-democratization take us back to the "green rooms" of the WTO where mega deals were apparently struck and everyone was asked to follow? Will de-democratization lead to the beginning of the process of "de-legimization" of the WTO? On the other hand, how does one ensure that the multilateral, rule-based system is engaged with by both the major trading powers and smaller trading nations? The task is cut out for the next WTO chief to grapple with this conundrum.