It is rightly said that every Napoleon has to see his Waterloo.  Metaphorically, not   everyone met his defeat in historical and symbolic manner as did Napoleon Bonaparte.  Related to that is an American phrase I learnt during my graduation days at the University of Arizona that Every dog has his day, but night belongs to pussy cats.
The same is true in case of President Musharraf whose days seem to be over and his end is written on the wall. 
Born in a lower middle class family from India in 1943 and experiencing a pyramid rise in the army, reaching the rank of Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) after superseding three of his superiors in October 1998, he has been serving as the de facto and de jure head of the state since October 1999.  Nevertheless, he seems to have become entangled by surrounding opposition, loss of his own men, and separated by alliances and bases his real or pseudo came from. 
He took over on October 12 which could be justified as the continuation of the praetorian role that begins as a moderator and turns into guardian and then adopts the ruler type role. The army took over power despite the fact that a civilian government was functioning as expected. Even unlike the previous two coups there was less political chaos and instability at the time of the coup. In his first address to nation he said, “The  armed forces have moved in as a last resort, to prevent any further destabilization.  I have done so with all sincerity, loyalty, and selfless devotion to the country. …. .”  As a political scientist I believe a worst crime was committed as three elections had taken place and the process of democratic system had begun.
He was saved by the Supreme Court under the “doctrine of state necessity” which was shadowed by the rule that power grows out of the barrel of guns. Guns were designed to control power. The events following it resulted in LFO or Provisional Constitutional Order asking the judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and relevant high courts to retake the oath --- an essential strategy for the establishment to affirm the loyalty of the higher judiciary. On January 26, 2000 Chief Justice Saeed Zaman Siddiqui and five other judges of the 13-member Supreme Court bench who refused to do so were dismissed.  Saeed Zaman was replaced by Ershad Hassan Khan as the chief justice. Higher salute to the judges not taking oath under LFO ---- they are actually heroes of the restoration of judiciary.
The events following until a civilian government was restored was the reflection of President Musharraf’s Ruler Type Praetorian Rule, the price for which we as a common man nation and army as an institution is paying. 
The restoration of civilian rule and his becoming a president under 17th Amendment was a credit to undemocratic forces and discredit to the lack of viable political institutions and leadership; and not considerable opposition inside the parliament. Pakistan Muslim League (Q) was a crown party established to legitimize his military-turned civilian rule by playing a supportive role. Majority of them were those who sided with him and joined the party to support their volatile interests.
In Karl Marxian term that every system contains the seeds of its own destruction the major problem with the system was the one man authoritarian rule supported by undemocratic forces which led to the sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on March 9, 2007.  From then onwards a resistance to his rule with major focus on his undemocratic and authoritarian policies resulted in mass movement, the major support for which came from common man and party workers.  The lawyers’ resistance and mobilization of masses led to public resentment against him, ultimately benefiting political parties.  The die had been cast for him and associates. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto the blame for which can be driven to different circles heightened the resentment against them.  
February 18 elections were a mandate the public gave for a change from top to bottom.  He had sworn as president due to the fact that he could neither hope nor expect a parliament with his men in majority.  He sought the short cut by being reelected by the one whose tenure was almost over. But such a deed is expected from one having toppled a civilian government and ruled the country with undemocratic norms.  It is politically naïve for not having expected the political manners and deeds he showed.  His election as president was publicly rejected in 18th February elections and he should have resigned had he believed in democratic values or norms.  But one should not expect from a person, having toppled a civilian rule with 8/9 years of undemocratic norms, to resign on public mandate. A credit nonetheless for fair and transparent 18th February elections goes to Gen Kiyani.  To me, under him army played the role of guardian by not allowing agencies’ role at micro-level rigging.  His uniform which President Musharraf called his skin was over, and GHQ support was partial.
His PML-Q crumbled like a house of cards.  No matter the party had fewer seats but its stalwarts in and outside assembly could raise hands of support to President Musharraf have been beleaguered in army house whose evacuation was imminent under the situation.  The major hopeless show of PML-Q came from Balochistan where the party despite majority was unable to form government.  In case a government had been formed in Balochistan and shown support to Musharraf, there would have been a moral victory for him anyhow.  But it did not happen.  Many of his close admirers and MPAs/ministers in previous government from the province not only defected but blamed him publicly for the day to day miseries of nation.   
One version is that he would have gone long ago had there been no US support.  The version itself is not valid as the support from the White House is itself a lame duck and American support for a president is largely based on national interest. He is now a used card for them who has been rejected by a popular mandate and cornered by his own trustees.
He himself seems perturbed over the situation and like an empty vassal sounds louder without common sense.  Many of his statements reflect that he feels insecure. His few days back press conference was a reflection of it. What did he say in the whole conference was repeated rhetoric. For example, he said that it is not a question of person but institution (Presidency) requiring protocol and importance from the national point of view.  He said no matter whether it is Ayub Khan, Yahya or Rafiq Tarar, the person is not important but office should be respected. One could simply ask him then what did he do with the office of Presidency under Rafiq Tarar.  Are we not witness to Tarar being robbed off his office, honour and protocol.
And a look back into our history of the exit passage of the presidents since Iskander Mirza in 1958 supports the hypothesis that more or less is denuded of its protocol and evacuated in dramatic way without admiration.