It is generally believed that the Pakistan army has a great influence on Pakistan's politics and judiciary.
If that is the truth, then why couldn't Gen. Pervez Musharraf avoid a myriad of cases against him for which he is living in Dubai in exile?
Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Simply put, Musharraf had lost influence and support within the armed forces. The armed forces are not uniform and even they have different factions. As long as Musharraf commanded their loyalty he could be kept in power. Once it was lost he was out. Kiyani (who was on Time's list of most powerful people during his time as chief of the army in Pakistan) was appointed by Musharraf. However, Kiyani refused to safeguard Musharraf against political actions:
Musharraf's handpicked successor as army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, is unlikely to come to the rescue of his old boss, analysts said. Kiyani last week issued an order that no military officers can meet with the president without his approval and indicated that he would recall the many military officers placed in civilian jobs under Musharraf.
In Pakistan, once you lose the support of the military you can no longer be in power, which is what happened to Imran Khan just a few weeks ago:
"The army would be very happy to get rid of him," said one political analyst, Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general.
The answer comes from the quote taken from a book written several decades ago.
If we want that nothing changes, everything must change.
It happens often when politics is too much personalised and focused on few people hailed as great leaders. When people start protesting too much against the status quo the leader steps aside in a manner that is as spectacular as possible and carries with them all the blame, thus the surrounding power structure is left unchanged.