I believe that Bhutto, Nawaz and BeNazir were all dictators, some worse than the other. On the other hand, I do not believe that Musharraf was/is a dictator. So, there is difference between classification of dictator and being not dictator. To me, a dictator is one who does not tolerate opposition and forces their will over others regardless of consequence. If Musharraf was dictator than we would have had Kalabagh dam by now, Lal-Masjud fiasco would not have lingered around for months, Nawaz would not have left Prison to Saudia, many of Musharraf's opponents like Iftikhar, Atezaz, Imran, etc, would have been in prison, no one in Media would have dared to talk against Musharraf or his government and would have been lucky to see next daylight, etc.
Musharraf was elected leader, he is/was the most democratic leader to ever grace the earth.
As for those who take Western definition and consider 'One person authoritarian rule' as dictatorship, then rule of Prophet (SAW) in Medina, rule of Khulfa-e-Rashideen, later Kingdoms (Umayyad, Abbasids, Ottoman), as well as all other Muslim and non-Muslim Kingdoms before recent western style government, were dictatorship, as all was based on one person authoritarian rule. To me, amongst past mentioned rules, many can be considered better than western democracy, and many worse than western democracy.
sharam tum ko magar nahi aati. The Khulafa-e-Rashideen were not average dogs like Musharraf, Nawaz or Bhutto, there were pious persons and the level of self-less-ness cannot even be dreamt of by the likes of Musharraf, Nawaz, Bhutto or others whereas level of selfishness in Musharraf, Nawaz, Bhutto and the likes is un-speakable in probably recent history.